Costella's Review of Horne's IARRB

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK, Michael. I took a look at the times and thought mine at 12:21 AM or whatever was hours before his at 4:24 AM or whatever,

but perhaps I had the days wrong. The reason there are no comments, I imagine, is that I actually posted it so everyone could

read it. That's it. I did not think the thread on Costella's review was exclusively about his review but comparing it with others.

David's review is far superior to Costella's, which was rooted in a blunder about which film Homer McMahon actually reviewed. I

am a huge fan of Costella, but in this case, he simply missed the boat. I freely acknowledge my mixed feelings about Bill Kelly.

Because it is a different take on Horne--and far better grounded! Frankly, I had no idea you were so easily confused. After I posted it here (for the benefit of those who were reading this thread), I also created a new thread (for the benefit of those who were not). If you had been paying attention, you would not have begun another--and already completely superfluous--thread. Or maybe not.

Jim,

Wrong. Bill Kelly originally started two threads, one on Mantik and one on Costella and their reviews of Horne's work.

Members responded to both. It was you that was not paying attention.

Mantik's review consists of twenty-five pages. To reproduce it in full and stick it in the middle of a spirited thread about Costella was

both irritating and inappropriate. You could have posted a link to Mantik's PDF review and then referenced your own duplicate thread.

I will acknowledge that that title of your belated thread on Mantik was more descriptive, spelled his name correctly, and contained

your name in the heading. It has received no responses and been relegated to the second page, where it belongs.

It's no secret on this Forum what you think of Bill Kelly. You've made that abundantly clear many times before.

However, your lack of respect for him and your own ego seems to have clouded your judgment in this matter.

Edited April 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

Jim, what happened to your diatribe (typed in all bold) disputing my claim that Mantik's review was twenty-five pages? You rudely

responded that it was only five pages. I see that you have since edited things back to your original statement. I wish I had copied it

before you did so. Frankly, it was quite telling about you and your tactics when challenged on something you write.

Maybe you need to slow down. You are a prolific writer and internet presence, but you may be spreading yourself too thin.

Your now-removed response was offensive in the way it was worded and it was wrong.

FYI, this is where I got the information that Mantik's review was twenty-five pages:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=188863

Where did you get your information that it was only five?

OK, Michael. I took a look at the times and thought mine at 12:21 AM or whatever was hours before his at 4:24 AM or whatever,

but perhaps I had the days wrong. The reason there are no comments, I imagine, is that I actually posted it so everyone could

read it. That's it. I did not think the thread on Costella's review was exclusively about his review but comparing it with others.

David's review is far superior to Costella's, which was rooted in a blunder about which film Homer McMahon actually reviewed. I

am a huge fan of Costella, but in this case, he simply missed the boat. I freely acknowledge my mixed feelings about Bill Kelly.

Because it is a different take on Horne--and far better grounded! Frankly, I had no idea you were so easily confused. After I posted it here (for the benefit of those who were reading this thread), I also created a new thread (for the benefit of those who were not). If you had been paying attention, you would not have begun another--and already completely superfluous--thread. Or maybe not.

Jim,

Wrong. Bill Kelly originally started two threads, one on Mantik and one on Costella and their reviews of Horne's work.

Members responded to both. It was you that was not paying attention.

Mantik's review consists of twenty-five pages. To reproduce it in full and stick it in the middle of a spirited thread about Costella was

both irritating and inappropriate. You could have posted a link to Mantik's PDF review and then referenced your own duplicate thread.

I will acknowledge that that title of your belated thread on Mantik was more descriptive, spelled his name correctly, and contained

your name in the heading. It has received no responses and been relegated to the second page, where it belongs.

It's no secret on this Forum what you think of Bill Kelly. You've made that abundantly clear many times before.

However, your lack of respect for him and your own ego seems to have clouded your judgment in this matter.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What's wrong with you, Michael? I had posted it and it is even repeated (quoted) several times here and is not that long

in forum pages, which is probably why I said that. I decided to double-check and saw that it actually was 25 pages long,

so I deleted my mistaken comments. Yes, it does reflect on my methodology. When I think I may have made a mistake,

I check it and, if so, I correct it! Perhaps you don't even know that I was the first to post David's review anywhere, which

was on on assassinationscience.com. David noticed the flap about Horne because of Costella's review and observed that

his had been lost in the shuffle, so I was moved to post it on this thread and create a separate one as well. Is that OK?

In fact, I see that that is where you found it! Good for you! Do we have to elevate every triviality into a federal offense?

Jim, what happened to your diatribe (typed in all bold) disputing my claim that Mantik's review was twenty-five pages? You rudely

responded that it was only five pages. I see that you have since edited things back to your original statement. I wish I had copied it

before you did so. Frankly, it was quite telling about you and your tactics when challenged on something you write.

Maybe you need to slow down. You are a prolific writer and internet presence, but you may be spreading yourself too thin.

Your now-removed response was offensive in the way it was worded and it was wrong.

FYI, this is where I got the information that Mantik's review was twenty-five pages:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=188863

Where did you get your information that it was only five?

OK, Michael. I took a look at the times and thought mine at 12:21 AM or whatever was hours before his at 4:24 AM or whatever,

but perhaps I had the days wrong. The reason there are no comments, I imagine, is that I actually posted it so everyone could

read it. That's it. I did not think the thread on Costella's review was exclusively about his review but comparing it with others.

David's review is far superior to Costella's, which was rooted in a blunder about which film Homer McMahon actually reviewed. I

am a huge fan of Costella, but in this case, he simply missed the boat. I freely acknowledge my mixed feelings about Bill Kelly.

Because it is a different take on Horne--and far better grounded! Frankly, I had no idea you were so easily confused. After I posted it here (for the benefit of those who were reading this thread), I also created a new thread (for the benefit of those who were not). If you had been paying attention, you would not have begun another--and already completely superfluous--thread. Or maybe not.

Jim,

Wrong. Bill Kelly originally started two threads, one on Mantik and one on Costella and their reviews of Horne's work.

Members responded to both. It was you that was not paying attention.

Mantik's review consists of twenty-five pages. To reproduce it in full and stick it in the middle of a spirited thread about Costella was

both irritating and inappropriate. You could have posted a link to Mantik's PDF review and then referenced your own duplicate thread.

I will acknowledge that that title of your belated thread on Mantik was more descriptive, spelled his name correctly, and contained

your name in the heading. It has received no responses and been relegated to the second page, where it belongs.

It's no secret on this Forum what you think of Bill Kelly. You've made that abundantly clear many times before.

However, your lack of respect for him and your own ego seems to have clouded your judgment in this matter.

Edited April 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David G. Healy]

2003 UofMinn presentation, incredible, and his follow-up webpages dismantling of the the naysayer Gang of Eight and countering every parry thrown his way, a masterful feat. And Jack White's many year odyssey into assassination related film-photos, he has no equal -- he spurred others on when interest waned.

David Healy

Yes you are correct, the photo analysis of Jack White has no equal, it is perhaps some of the worst ever foisted upon mankind. His lack of the most basic of photographic skills is legendary. Thanks so much for making the point.

indeed, you ARE nervous.... so here's the deal guy, the entire, ENTIRE film, photo and x-ray record regarding the JFK assassination is suspect... the damage is done. The best out of your camp is attack the proposer (with no hope of a headline) ya need the big picture, the 25th floor overview, what's the matter with you? Your move...

You claim you're a professional photog, a job that requires much creativity (at least that's what they say). Being in the field for many a year I really know better. Yet, I've seen not one bit of creativity on your part when it comes to research concerning this case.... An ever-recurring echo that of someone reading the 1964 WCR, as published. Droning on and on and ON -- where's the creativity?

So get creative, sans the fall of shadows in case related photographs, no one really cares -- be bold, tell us what Shaneyfelt had going through his mind the 5 hours preceding his presentation to the full Warren Commission Feb 1964. (Whose briefing boards did he use?) You may start a thread covering this subject matter, anytime you like.... however like everything else **lone-nut** I wouldn't expect creative thought supporting the WCR anytime soon.

Also, I suspect Dr. John Costella would wipe the floor with you, debating such things as optics, lens spec's and the physics of light. I doubt he'd bother, nor would I even go, even for free....

So let's not shred this thread, Redd Foxx will not be happy.... Where's Wild Bill Miller when I need him... someone get the 6th floor on the phone, see if he's busy! I have 3,000 questions....

[Craig Lamson]

2003 UofMinn presentation, incredible, and his follow-up webpages dismantling of the the naysayer Gang of Eight and countering every parry thrown his way, a masterful feat. And Jack White's many year odyssey into assassination related film-photos, he has no equal -- he spurred others on when interest waned.

David Healy

Yes you are correct, the photo analysis of Jack White has no equal, it is perhaps some of the worst ever foisted upon mankind. His lack of the most basic of photographic skills is legendary. Thanks so much for making the point.

indeed, you ARE nervous.... so here's the deal guy, the entire, ENTIRE film, photo and x-ray record regarding the JFK assassination is suspect... the damage is done. The best out of your camp is attack the proposer (with no hope of a headline) ya need the big picture, the 25th floor overview, what's the matter with you? Your move...

You claim you're a professional photog, a job that requires much creativity (at least that's what they say). Being in the field for many a year I really know better. Yet, I've seen not one bit of creativity on your part when it comes to research concerning this case.... An ever-recurring echo that of someone reading the 1964 WCR, as published. Droning on and on and ON -- where's the creativity?

So get creative, sans the fall of shadows in case related photographs, no one really cares -- be bold, tell us what Shaneyfelt had going through his mind the 5 hours preceding his presentation to the full Warren Commission Feb 1964. (Whose briefing boards did he use?) You may start a thread covering this subject matter, anytime you like.... however like everything else **lone-nut** I wouldn't expect creative thought supporting the WCR anytime soon.

Also, I suspect Dr. John Costella would wipe the floor with you, debating such things as optics, lens spec's and the physics of light. I doubt he'd bother, nor would I even go, even for free....

So let's not shred this thread, Redd Foxx will not be happy.... Where's Wild Bill Miller when I need him... someone get the 6th floor on the phone, see if he's busy! I have 3,000 questions....

Nervous? Now thats funny! Seems you are the one nervously trying way to hard to defend the indefencible...and the ignorants pushing it. John P Costella made a major fool of himself with his failure to understand something simple photographic parallax...a bedrock arguement of his blown to pieces by his ignorance. That he can't refute these speaks volumes. Won't bother? ROFLMAO! Can't save face is more like it.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Of course YOU can give it a go, given your (supposed) years of experience. You have it in you or are you just one more alterationist full of nothing but hot air?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

OK, Michael. I took a look at the times and thought mine at 12:21 AM or whatever was hours before his at 4:24 AM or whatever,

but perhaps I had the days wrong. The reason there are no comments, I imagine, is that I actually posted it so everyone could

read it. That's it. I did not think the thread on Costella's review was exclusively about his review but comparing it with others.

David's review is far superior to Costella's, which was rooted in a blunder about which film Homer McMahon actually reviewed. I

am a huge fan of Costella, but in this case, he simply missed the boat. I freely acknowledge my mixed feelings about Bill Kelly.

Because it is a different take on Horne--and far better grounded! Frankly, I had no idea you were so easily confused. After I posted it here (for the benefit of those who were reading this thread), I also created a new thread (for the benefit of those who were not). If you had been paying attention, you would not have begun another--and already completely superfluous--thread. Or maybe not.

Jim,

Wrong. Bill Kelly originally started two threads, one on Mantik and one on Costella and their reviews of Horne's work.

Members responded to both. It was you that was not paying attention.

Mantik's review consists of twenty-five pages. To reproduce it in full and stick it in the middle of a spirited thread about Costella was

both irritating and inappropriate. You could have posted a link to Mantik's PDF review and then referenced your own duplicate thread.

I will acknowledge that that title of your belated thread on Mantik was more descriptive, spelled his name correctly, and contained

your name in the heading. It has received no responses and been relegated to the second page, where it belongs.

It's no secret on this Forum what you think of Bill Kelly. You've made that abundantly clear many times before.

However, your lack of respect for him and your own ego seems to have clouded your judgment in this matter.

[William Kelly]

All,

Now that I have read the review, I think that Bill Kelly made a good

effort to be even-handed, where John has different fish to fry.

BK: Indeed, John Cosella started out to fry a fish, and never intended to write a serious critical analysis of Doug Horne's work.

What

he has not done--and it is a grievous shortcoming--is to explain what

Doug DID ACCOMPLISH by way of establishing five physical differences

between the original celluloid and the current, establishing that the

chain of custody was broken by two different films having been brought

to the NPIC on consecutive evenings, and by demonstrating that at least

some internal content alteration has been established by the Hollywood

experts. This is not as powerful and scientific as Costella's proofs

of film fakery and of the necessity to reshoot each frame in order to

avoid exposure via the "ghost panels", but it is still not bad stuff.

(emphasis added)

Although I concede that Doug did reveal important--very important--new clarifying information...still:

IMO, it is not John's responsibility to "explain" what Doug accomplished in his work! If it needs to be "explained" by a critic [a reviewer] it was not well explained by the author of the work to begin with!

As a point of logic, John contends that his own [John's] work proves that the Z-film is either authentic or it is not [read:it is completely fabricated]. It was altered far beyond a mere "paint over" of individual frames. Moreover, his work proves that there is no such thing as "a slightly altered" Z-film. It was completely altered. However, it could be argued that Doug almost undermines the significance of those findings by his lack of recognition of them in his book!

BK: Yes, and he should fail to recognize them in his book because they are not credible, at least in the minds of those who at least consider the possiblity that Abe Zapruder actually took the film attributed to him, which Costella does not. Why doesn't Costella write his own book rather than try to impose his theories on to Horne's work, which is now the state-of-the-situation reference?

If the situation was reversed and Doug's book was a "review" of Costella's work, then I think your criticism of HIS (Doug's) "review" might be well founded. Not the other way around, though.

I find a lot of merit in defining that distinction.

In fact, in his eagerness to impail Horne, Costella commits a major

blunder. If he had read Horne carefully, he would have known that a

split 8mm version that had been developed in Dallas was brought to the

NPIC on Saturday with one crew at work and another unsplit 16mm version

was brought from Rochester the next evening. The NPIC even had to go

out to purchase an 8mm projector to show the 8mm film, because it did

not have one. The problem for John is that Homer McMahon was working

on Sunday, not on Satuday, which means that the version he worked with

was the already altered version brought from "Hawkeye Works" or what-

ever. Doug's original report about Homer's statements is in MURDER

and have given what he had to say on that occasion a lot of thought.

I don't think that John had any "eagerness to impail Horne"

BK: No, you don't think he was eager, though for two months we heard nothing from Costella except, through him and his friends on the grapevine, that what he was writing would destroy Horne. Well it not only failed to destroy Horne, it totally discredited Costella in the minds of anyone, other than Jack White and Greg Burnham.

nor do I think it is settled science that John committed a "blunder"--major or otherwise. Suggesting it is so, in the fashion offered, resembles a "Poisoning of the Well" -- IMHO.

BK: Well, Costella certainly committed a major "blunder" in that he attributes McMahon as the source of the briefing boards usued by Lindahl to brief McCone, when in fact he had nothing to do with that briefing.

Moreover, the John I know "reads things carefully" prior to comment. Suggesting otherwise further poisons the well.

BK: The well has been poisoned by Costella.

I was so captivated by Homer's having viewed the film ten or more times

and having observed "6 to 8 impacts" that I inferred he was not talking

about JFK alone but had to be talking about impacts on occupants of the

limousine. That made great sense, since JFK was hit at least four times

and Connally as many as three, where 4 + 3 = 7, a number in between six

and eight. I have explained this on radio and to Noel in revising his

book for publication. It was only in discussing the matter explicitly

with Doug that I came to realize that, since Homer was watching a film

that had already undergone (at least preliminary) revision, it was most

unlikely that he could have been observing impacts from the event itself.

I am unsure as to what relevance the above has to John's review?

I am a bit taken aback that John suggests my reaction to the suggestion

that Doug Horne might be a government agent was "hysterical". I know a

lot more about Doug than does John, having interviewed him three times

now at two-hours apiece on "The Real Deal" and having prepared two or

three blogs about his work for my blog, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. In

my opinion, if Doug Horne is a government agent, then I am a lunatic.

Well, it seems to me to make perfect sense. That if Doug is (and I'm not claiming he is), but if he is a gov agent, (and IF you are that convinced he isn't), then since you don't want to be a lunatic--the implication could cause a near hysterical reaction! Not that far-fetched, IMO. But, I wasn't there--so I don't know.

BK: If Doug Horne is a government agent he is certainly doing a bad job of it, as he has outlined the details of how those within the government conducted the coup that removed JFK from office.

This is about as bizarre and unjustifiable an insinuation as I have

ever encountered in JFK research. I know them both and regard them

with the greatest esteem. Sometimes, alas, many of us tend to go off

the deep end, which I am afraid goes with kind of research we are doing.

This is a nice example of an extremely smart man offering a dumb review.

Jim

Am I offering a dumb review of your review of his review? Sheesh. Labels mean very little to me.

BK: I guess that we can assume that Jack White and Monk agree that Costell's 'great' "review" of IARRB is correct in that Horne intentionall tries to confuse his readers for lack of index, is a G-Man, is continuing the cover-up and is responsible for the supression of the McMahon interview and for giving the Z-family $35 million. What else can we blame him for?

Is there anyone else who wants to rise up and defend Costella's rantings?

Let them speak now.

BTW, G-Man has announced on his blog that the first printing has been sold out - Congraduations Doug - and that the erratas reported have been corrected in the second printing, now underway.

And G-Man will respond to the Hattchet Man's review of his work on his blog soon.

BK

BK

[Pat Speer]

Bill, I believe Doug is a member of this forum. Is there a reason he hasn't come here to defend himself against Costella? Not that I feel he has to. But I remember that when I was squabbling with Dale Myers, his only responding via his website made me think even less of him. Yes, even less of him.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Michael Hogan]

Bill, I believe Doug is a member of this forum. Is there a reason he hasn't come here to defend himself against Costella? Not that I feel he has to.....

Well, he didn't exactly give the Education Forum a ringing endorsement in his rebuttal.

In this instance, I believe his journal was the perfect venue. Thanks to Bernice, his rebuttal got here at warp speed.

In a way, I think he over-defended himself. But I think I can understand why he was incensed.

[William Kelly]

Bill, I believe Doug is a member of this forum. Is there a reason he hasn't come here to defend himself against Costella? Not that I feel he has to.....

Well, he didn't exactly give the Education Forum a ringing endorsement in his rebuttal.

In this instance, I believe his journal was the perfect venue. Thanks to Bernice, his rebuttal got here at warp speed.

In a way, I think he over-defended himself. But I think I can understand why he was incensed.

You know, Doug is a member of this forum, just like Tony Summers, Dick Russell, Bill Turner, Peter Dale Scott, AJW, - and even the JMWAVE asset crew are all here, but they don't like getting beat up - by people like Costella... - et al....I could name a dozen but don't want to inflame them - and all the authors ask for is a little respect.

And I too take exception to Doug Horne's reference to the Education Forum being misnamed, as it has certainly enhanced our understanding of the JFK assassination more than any other forum that I've known since the beginning of the internet, and continues to do so, and has yet to extend the limits of what it can acomplish. Thanks John, for providing the forum for John Costella's review and the platform for correctional feedback.

They may have misnamed the JFK Assassination Debate, since very few of the Lone Nutters or conspiracy deniers can stand it very long, having their basic assumptions challenged, but the debate among the Conspiracy Theorists themselves has shown that there really is no such thing as the "Research Community," and most everybody has their own agenda.

Just as Costella has now branded Horne a "Government Man" by using that as a peface for mentioning his name at least seven times, and calling David Lifton "Doug Horne's friend David Lifton" in similar terms, I think Lifton should from now on be known as "Doug Horne's Friend David Lifton," and that should be carved on his gravestone. Does everybody now know that David Lifton inspired Horne and they are friends, though Doug often disagrees with Lifton about many issues, as anyone who has read their books would know? This point is also hammered home in Jimmy D's so-far-fair analysis of Horne's books, so does everyone know that Lifton inspired Horne, and they are friends?

Now people - ie. Jones Harris, eta l., are branding me "Doug Horne's Friend" Bill Kelly, as if we are "friends," when in fact we are barely acquaintences. I was unaware of Doug Horne's presence at one of the early COPA confererences in DC when he met Tunheim and was encouraged by John Judge to try to get a job with ARRB. In that vein, it could be argued that Horne's was COPA's ARRB infiltrator, but if that's so, then my biggest beef with Horne is why did it took ten years for him to file his report?

In fact, I've never had so much as a phone converstation with Doug Horne, and when I finally did meet him I vetted my pet peeves in much the same way as Costella and Speer have, complaining about him not getting McMahon's correct background on tape when he interviewed him, and thinking it but not actually verbalizing it - by the way Doug, if you had read my work about the Air Force One Tapes you would have known what the "Liberty" station was, and not have to speculate about it. But the things he managed to do far out weight what wasn't done, and we'll all be playing catch up for years to come.

And when I thanked him for getting Jose Rivera's military file, which are listed among his records in the ARRB files, he said it wasn't him, but Dave Marwell who asked for them, so where's the ego that others are so enhanced with?

Doug Horne is the G-Man - the first U.S. government officer, former deputy and Chief of Miltiary Records for the Assassination Records Review Board, to publicly conclude that his analysis of the military records on the assassination leads him to conclude that the assassination was a coup d'etat conducted by military-intelligence personell within the government.

Now we have to decide what to do if Doug Horne is right.

BK

Edited April 8, 2010 by William Kelly

[Jack White]

Everyone tends to see EVERYTHING in terms of black vs white...ALL OR NOTHING. Not so.

Horne made valuable contributions.

Costella made valuable contributions.

Both fail to credit the contributions made by the other.

Neither is as bad as the other says.

Lighten up, guys.

Horne shows that there was monkey business with the "original" film.

Costella shows that in addition to that monkey business, at a later time, the film underwent a

complete overhaul.

Both have made significant contributions.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

That is idiotic.

My intent in this thread was not to disagree with HORNE nor was it to agree with Costella. And that's not what I did. Unfortunately, Bill Kelly placed words in my mouth. My intent was to defend John from undue harsh criticism by Jim. Yes, it was unduly harsh. You can disagree without calling his review "dumb" or accusing him of "blunders" and a few other choice put downs. You can push too hard against the people you treasure in this world the most--under the cover of "seeking the truth" -- only to alienate them or to cause them to disengage from the good fight because it has turned into the bad fight. Nobody wins in such scenarios--least of all the truth.

IMO: John wrote a review with which some (if not most) people here didn't agree. So what? Does that excuse the exchange of rude remarks? How about this: What if we all at times over-react in our zeal to express our opinions? Obviously, that happens... What I find hard to imagine is that when it happens--when someone over-reacts-- "friends" don't attempt to work it out by exploring why the person over-reacted, but instead "take sides" and villify the other--irrespective of the person's dedication and valuable contributions.

Well, I know that I'm new to this particular venue and have no "standing" here, but those who know me well understand what I consider to be reasonable rules of engagement. IMO: it is common courtesy to show self restraint and if members were to behave like adults there would be no need for moderators at all.

Anyway, so long. Good luck in your pursuit of the truth. I hope your paths converge on it no matter what route you take.

GO_SECURE

monk

====

Everyone tends to see EVERYTHING in terms of black vs white...ALL OR NOTHING. Not so.

Horne made valuable contributions.

Costella made valuable contributions.

Both fail to credit the contributions made by the other.

Neither is as bad as the other says.

Lighten up, guys.

Horne shows that there was monkey business with the "original" film.

Costella shows that in addition to that monkey business, at a later time, the film underwent a

complete overhaul.

Both have made significant contributions.

Jack

Edited April 8, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

Greg, I, for one, hope you stick around. Your level-headedness has been an asset to the forum.

[John Simkin]

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

Greg, I, for one, hope you stick around. Your level-headedness has been an asset to the forum.

I agree. Unfortunately, the abusive members of the forum often drive away the more reasonable members. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that is maybe their intention.

[William Kelly]

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

Greg, I, for one, hope you stick around. Your level-headedness has been an asset to the forum.

I agree. Unfortunately, the abusive members of the forum often drive away the more reasonable members. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that is maybe their intention.

I too hope Greg sticks around, and I appologize for anything I said that offended him, as he mentions my name specifically.

As a friend of John Costella I hope Greg can convince JC to join the fray and defend his opinions, and I hope John Simkin can convince Doug Horne to do the same, though both are apparently gun shy of these places, and for good reason. But I for one promise to behave if they come aboard, and perhaps if some civilty is shown, Mark Lane will not be afraid to respond to some of the posts either.

As JFK once paraphrased, the bad will certainly dominate if the good don't get involved.

BK