Greg Parker Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 What is it with this forum??? I make a kind remark to Lee Farley-- a genuinely deferential remark-- and out of nowhere, kaboom! No good deed goes unpunished, or so it seems. So Greg, this is to you: I wasn't being sarcastic. That's not my nature. It may be common faire on this forum, but it is not my style, and I'll have none of it. Best, daniel Being "genuinely deferential", Daniel, is a contradiction in terms. What you really mean is that you work hard at being deferential. But whether it was sarcasm or deference hardly matters - they're just opposite sides of the same coin - and It's forced. Not your style? You want me to believe that? Inside that Caspar Milquetoast on horse tranks exterior there is a seething sea of suppressed rage. I'd be a tad peeved at the world too, if I'd ever swallowed Best Evidence. As for this forum, I can't say I've read all your exchanges, but from what I've seen, you've been treated pretty gently. Even I bear you no malice as I take aim. Best, greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 What is it with this forum??? I make a kind remark to Lee Farley-- a genuinely deferential remark-- and out of nowhere, kaboom! No good deed goes unpunished, or so it seems. So Greg, this is to you: I wasn't being sarcastic. That's not my nature. It may be common faire on this forum, but it is not my style, and I'll have none of it. Best, daniel Being "genuinely deferential", Daniel, is a contradiction in terms. What you really mean is that you work hard at being deferential. But whether it was sarcasm or deference hardly matters - they're just opposite sides of the same coin - and It's forced. Not your style? You want me to believe that? Inside that Caspar Milquetoast on horse tranks exterior there is a seething sea of suppressed rage. I'd be a tad peeved at the world too, if I'd ever swallowed Best Evidence. As for this forum, I can't say I've read all your exchanges, but from what I've seen, you've been treated pretty gently. Even I bear you no malice as I take aim. Best, greg Greg-- please, is it possible, that I am not as you suppose? "seething sea of suppressed rage?" "Peeved at the world?" I could tell you quite a lot of the joy of being a simple Christian, but that would perhaps best be done in private correspondence. It is enough here to say my hope is not in this present life-- let's leave it at that. Yes I do want you to believe that I am as I say I am. Yes, I have been treated gently on this forum; and yes, there is always a time to be "genuinely deferential." I have made all the points I can make on Bowron, and Lee Farley had made his points, so there was nothing more to be said. I can leave Lee and the topic because until I hear from Wallace Milam (which doesn't appear to be going to happen) I am too much in the dark to write more. Sometimes, Greg, being at peace is a really good thing, and I intend to stay there, even though I admire Best Evidence and David Lifton. The two ideas --being at peace, and admiring Best Evidence --are hardly contradictory. Make of that what you will--that is my firm conviction. Best, Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 What is it with this forum??? I make a kind remark to Lee Farley-- a genuinely deferential remark-- and out of nowhere, kaboom! No good deed goes unpunished, or so it seems. So Greg, this is to you: I wasn't being sarcastic. That's not my nature. It may be common faire on this forum, but it is not my style, and I'll have none of it. Best, daniel Being "genuinely deferential", Daniel, is a contradiction in terms. What you really mean is that you work hard at being deferential. But whether it was sarcasm or deference hardly matters - they're just opposite sides of the same coin - and It's forced. Not your style? You want me to believe that? Inside that Caspar Milquetoast on horse tranks exterior there is a seething sea of suppressed rage. I'd be a tad peeved at the world too, if I'd ever swallowed Best Evidence. As for this forum, I can't say I've read all your exchanges, but from what I've seen, you've been treated pretty gently. Even I bear you no malice as I take aim. Best, greg Greg-- please, is it possible, that I am not as you suppose? "seething sea of suppressed rage?" "Peeved at the world?" I could tell you quite a lot of the joy of being a simple Christian, but that would perhaps best be done in private correspondence. It is enough here to say my hope is not in this present life-- let's leave it at that. Yes I do want you to believe that I am as I say I am. Yes, I have been treated gently on this forum; and yes, there is always a time to be "genuinely deferential." I have made all the points I can make on Bowron, and Lee Farley had made his points, so there was nothing more to be said. I can leave Lee and the topic because until I hear from Wallace Milam (which doesn't appear to be going to happen) I am too much in the dark to write more. Sometimes, Greg, being at peace is a really good thing, and I intend to stay there, even though I admire Best Evidence and David Lifton. The two ideas --being at peace, and admiring Best Evidence --are hardly contradictory. Make of that what you will--that is my firm conviction. Best, Daniel Yes, it's possible. But that would totally ruin my day. I Thought I recognized that glazed expression from somewhere! My hope is in this life, Daniel. Best Evidence and the Bible would seem to have a few things in common - except in one case, the body was missing for 3 days... Cheers, Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 What is it with this forum??? I make a kind remark to Lee Farley-- a genuinely deferential remark-- and out of nowhere, kaboom! No good deed goes unpunished, or so it seems. So Greg, this is to you: I wasn't being sarcastic. That's not my nature. It may be common faire on this forum, but it is not my style, and I'll have none of it. Best, daniel Being "genuinely deferential", Daniel, is a contradiction in terms. What you really mean is that you work hard at being deferential. But whether it was sarcasm or deference hardly matters - they're just opposite sides of the same coin - and It's forced. Not your style? You want me to believe that? Inside that Caspar Milquetoast on horse tranks exterior there is a seething sea of suppressed rage. I'd be a tad peeved at the world too, if I'd ever swallowed Best Evidence. As for this forum, I can't say I've read all your exchanges, but from what I've seen, you've been treated pretty gently. Even I bear you no malice as I take aim. Best, greg Greg-- please, is it possible, that I am not as you suppose? "seething sea of suppressed rage?" "Peeved at the world?" I could tell you quite a lot of the joy of being a simple Christian, but that would perhaps best be done in private correspondence. It is enough here to say my hope is not in this present life-- let's leave it at that. Yes I do want you to believe that I am as I say I am. Yes, I have been treated gently on this forum; and yes, there is always a time to be "genuinely deferential." I have made all the points I can make on Bowron, and Lee Farley had made his points, so there was nothing more to be said. I can leave Lee and the topic because until I hear from Wallace Milam (which doesn't appear to be going to happen) I am too much in the dark to write more. Sometimes, Greg, being at peace is a really good thing, and I intend to stay there, even though I admire Best Evidence and David Lifton. The two ideas --being at peace, and admiring Best Evidence --are hardly contradictory. Make of that what you will--that is my firm conviction. Best, Daniel Yes, it's possible. But that would totally ruin my day. I Thought I recognized that glazed expression from somewhere! My hope is in this life, Daniel. Best Evidence and the Bible would seem to have a few things in common - except in one case, the body was missing for 3 days... Cheers, Greg Very well, Greg, I'll take "yes it's possible" as a good sign. Enjoyed the humor as well. Best, Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 What is it with this forum??? I make a kind remark to Lee Farley-- a genuinely deferential remark-- and out of nowhere, kaboom! No good deed goes unpunished, or so it seems. So Greg, this is to you: I wasn't being sarcastic. That's not my nature. It may be common faire on this forum, but it is not my style, and I'll have none of it. Best, daniel Being "genuinely deferential", Daniel, is a contradiction in terms. What you really mean is that you work hard at being deferential. But whether it was sarcasm or deference hardly matters - they're just opposite sides of the same coin - and It's forced. Not your style? You want me to believe that? Inside that Caspar Milquetoast on horse tranks exterior there is a seething sea of suppressed rage. I'd be a tad peeved at the world too, if I'd ever swallowed Best Evidence. As for this forum, I can't say I've read all your exchanges, but from what I've seen, you've been treated pretty gently. Even I bear you no malice as I take aim. Best, greg Greg-- please, is it possible, that I am not as you suppose? "seething sea of suppressed rage?" "Peeved at the world?" I could tell you quite a lot of the joy of being a simple Christian, but that would perhaps best be done in private correspondence. It is enough here to say my hope is not in this present life-- let's leave it at that. Yes I do want you to believe that I am as I say I am. Yes, I have been treated gently on this forum; and yes, there is always a time to be "genuinely deferential." I have made all the points I can make on Bowron, and Lee Farley had made his points, so there was nothing more to be said. I can leave Lee and the topic because until I hear from Wallace Milam (which doesn't appear to be going to happen) I am too much in the dark to write more. Sometimes, Greg, being at peace is a really good thing, and I intend to stay there, even though I admire Best Evidence and David Lifton. The two ideas --being at peace, and admiring Best Evidence --are hardly contradictory. Make of that what you will--that is my firm conviction. Best, Daniel Dan, For Wallace, have you tried Dyersburg, TN? Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination: Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December 1964 ( The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 [Pamphlet, 32pp]). This is what we use as source material now? An extemporaneous lecture? Beats the hell out of the absurd official transcript of the press conference, for sure. From defending the fake film to defending the fraudulent transcript - what a fearless opponent of the cover-up you are! Okay, I'll bite. Why in the heck would "they" make a "fraudulent transcript" that disproved the WC's claims Perry never claimed the throat wound was an entrance, and then hide it away for many years? If it was fraudulent, wouldn't the WC have made it an exhibit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Good for you, Paul. The brain of Southport returns to tell us that Kennedy died from a hail of bullets fired from inside the limousine, yes?So, because Clarke says he did it then it's true? Bowron said she cleaned his back and saw the wound. Each forum member can take their pick. They ain't both right are they? One is lying or severely mistaken. I dare not mention Clint Hill should I, Paul? He was in on it, right?... ...Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all. For the most part, it's all pretty predictable fair. In fact, a typical Farley post, commingling, as it does, aggressive self-pity, tawdry logic, and self-satire - all suffused with that characteristic ill-suppressed hysteria. But then things take a turn for the better. Among the detritus of the the following paragraph, a sentence, highlighted, commands attention: What I said is not what you say I said. Is it? Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all. The highlighted sentence is so clunkingly sub-tabloid that it just had to be the work of, not Farley, but DisIngenuous*. All of which begs the inevitable question: how much of the rest of this, and other posts, ostensibly by Farley, are actually the work of DisIngenuous? And is this an isolated instance of DisIngenuous sock-puppetry? Keep your eyes peeled, folks, and perhaps also the ears: some of those Black Op emails to Jimbo are frightfully sycophantic. *“That quote he uses does not mean what he takes it to mean,” DisIngenuous, 6 Nov 2008 https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?226-Where-to-buy-the-very-good-1992-British-documentary-on-the-assassination-of-RFK&p=958#post958 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Good for you, Paul. The brain of Southport returns to tell us that Kennedy died from a hail of bullets fired from inside the limousine, yes?So, because Clarke says he did it then it's true? Bowron said she cleaned his back and saw the wound. Each forum member can take their pick. They ain't both right are they? One is lying or severely mistaken. I dare not mention Clint Hill should I, Paul? He was in on it, right?... ...Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all. For the most part, it's all pretty predictable fair. In fact, a typical Farley post, commingling, as it does, aggressive self-pity, tawdry logic, and self-satire - all suffused with that characteristic ill-suppressed hysteria. But then things take a turn for the better. Among the detritus of the the following paragraph, a sentence, highlighted, commands attention: What I said is not what you say I said. Is it? Par for the course with a manipulator of words such as yourself. If the medical evidence is anything, then it's damn interesting. It just doesn't go anywhere. A bit like a conversation with you. The man who knows it all. The highlighted sentence is so clunkingly sub-tabloid that it just had to be the work of, not Farley, but DisIngenuous*. All of which begs the inevitable question: how much of the rest of this, and other posts, ostensibly by Farley, are actually the work of DisIngenuous? And is this an isolated instance of DisIngenuous sock-puppetry? Keep your eyes peeled, folks, and perhaps also the ears: some of those Black Op emails to Jimbo are frightfully sycophantic. *“That quote he uses does not mean what he takes it to mean,” DisIngenuous, 6 Nov 2008 https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?226-Where-to-buy-the-very-good-1992-British-documentary-on-the-assassination-of-RFK&p=958#post958 "You really might want to not stop taking your medication." Thanks for the "clunky" feedback. My clunkometer was damaged when my spine fell out of my back whilst laughing at how somebody like you wields their own incredible intelligence with hands made out of stupid. I think you may have had a hard day at the "Office of Writing Contractual Terms and Conditions." Have a night off, Paul. Even when you do dispense with the thesaurus puking, I still have absolutely no idea what you're prattling on about. P.S. Is everyone cool with members accusing other members of being other people and using pseudonyms? Cool. Because you Paul, you're a ringer for that Gollum bloke from The Lord of the Rings. You're not what one would call naturally witty, are you? Nighty-night, er, Jimbo. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15252&view=findpost&p=198588What we are witnessing is a co-ordinated attempt, by a ramified network under central direction, to restore JFK assassination research to the prelapsarian age of Thompsonian imagining – one in which body- and film-alteration never happened, and Kennedy’s Secret Service detail was a bit hung-over and a tad remiss on November 22. Prophetic, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Because you Paul, you're a ringer for that Gollum bloke from The Lord of the Rings. Don't tell me Mr. FARLEY HAS FINally got something MEANINGFUL to SAY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Don't tell me Mr. FARLEY HAS FINally got something MEANINGFUL to SAY? Carroll ought to give it a rest. Lee has had him figured out for a year or so now. As EF members know, Lee's knowledge about the EVIDENCE in this case far exceeds Carroll's. The posts tell the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now