Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic

[Mike Rago]

A lot of what Tom brings up gets missed because of the way he presents it.

[Michael Hogan]

.....2. Was it Mike or Robert who posted the material that strongly indicates that Roundtree was, let us say, less than candid about the alibi she rounded up for her client?

It was not was it? It was Tom.

Jim just can't bring himself to attribute Culto from the Let's Roll Forum for the material. Maybe that's because he couldn't tell the difference between Culto's writing and Tom's!

Maybe Jim can feature some of Culto's research on the CTKA website.

While short on specifics or facts, Jim's pronouncement that Lovetree was impeached was followed by effusive praise.

It's clear that Jim did not bother clicking on the links contained in Tom's post.

http://educationforu...135#entry258724

[Michael Hogan]

Up to your old tricks again eh Hogan?

1. I clearly stated that Tom "posted" the material.

My old tricks are nothing more than trying to get Jim to hold himself accountable for what he has written. That's no easy task.

Jim belatedly came to realize that Culto was the author of the material. Originally, he thought that Tom was. Tom had to correct him.

2. You were the one who first introduced that forum here. And now that there appears there solid material that hurts your case, you want to discredit the messenger.

My post and link to Culto made it clear that I thought his theories were strange, long before Jim mistook Culto for Scully.

Solid material that hurts my case? My only case is, and has been from the outset, Jim's lack of objectivity when it comes to Raymond Crump. Nothing else.

3. What your last two lines mean escape me. The posting included scanned images which proved the point.

Proved what point?

Jim is now claiming the scanned images (from Roundtree's book and Burleigh's footnotes) prove that Dovey Roundtree has been "impeached."

Yet he has not elaborated on how or why. Jim is content to let Culto do the explaining.

This is all just obfuscation to detract from my point: Its Tom who has delivered new info, not Hogan or Robert.

What is the value of this "new info" from Culto that Tom delivered?

Jim still cannot bring himself to mention the name Culto. Maybe Culto won't make it to the CTKA website after all. Maybe Jim can recommend him for an appearance on Len's show.

[Greg Parker]

Jim,

maybe you're not aware of it, but Tom has taken up the habit of jumping into threads, belittling the research therein whilst promoting his own work. I was taking him to task in a joking way for taking so long in complaining on this occasion.

The rest of what I said is just a fact. John is entitled to his opinion about who the best posters here are, and I have little doubt his choices would be popular ones in any poll.

If you believe Tom is one of the best posters here, you are entitled to hold that opinion.

In the scheme of things, neither Janney nor his book will have any influence on history's final judgement regarding the assassination, so I find this whole debate a triple yawn and a triple waste of time.

It has also caused unnecessary divisions. You and Mike are on the same side regarding Armstrong's theory, so let me invite you both to show a united front here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=126

You're a disappointment, Tom.

I had you down as jumping on within an hour to protest the verdict. Ninety one minutes is just not good enough. Lift your game.

John is entitled to his opinion and I'd warrant it's not one that would do badly in any poll among posters and readers.

That's funny you should say that Greg.

1. Was it Mike or Robert who found out that the secret black operator who in Janney's bizarre book allegedly killed Meyer, namely Mitchell, did not disappear into the night as Damore and Janney said he did?

2. Was it Mike or Robert who posted the material that strongly indicates that Roundtree was, let us say, less than candid about the alibi she rounded up for her client?

3. Was it Mike or Robert who brought in a second witness about the make up of the jury, both in race and sex?

It was not was it? It was Tom.

In fact, what have Mike and Robert actually brought into this that was any different that what was in Janney's book or what has been posted on this site since John Simkin has been trying to promote Janney's book for oh so many years?

Nothing that I can see. So its predictable that he would then jump in and praise them at Tom's expense even though its Tom who has posted some new stuff here about not just the case, but Janney himself. I find it interesting that his stuff on Alford--who you have taken to task--is congruent with Janney i.e. the Rockefeller connection. Or didn't you notice that?

Simkin has been promoting the whole Janney edifice for years now--hook, line and sinker. That is, Gad what a great researcher Damore was, the whole Leary--Mary Meyer, LSD aspect etc. Although, quite wisely, he has backed off of it today, he even bought into that serial and pathological xxxx David Heymann. Whom he actually pushed on an unsuspecting David Talbot.

So what is the surprise here about which side Simkin is on? None.

Triple yawn.

[Michael Hogan]

It has been brought to Jim's attention that he was the first to mention Raymond Crump's name in this thread. Lisa's CTKA article featured Crump.

This was before Robert or I ever mentioned Crump's name. Against that backdrop:

That all you ( care about is the case for or against Crump. Then, as I have repeatedly said, why don't you and Hogan start your own thread! I beg you to do that:

START YOUR OWN THREAD!!

But you do not. And this is the second time I asked you to do that. I will even ask the moderators to start such a thread for you. But you won't do that will you Robert. Why?

This was the first time Jim "asked."

If you two want to discuss just the trial, and limit everyone else to that, simply because you are Mikey and RCD and you should get to limit the terms of the debate, even if the thread is titled something else, then fine. Go start another thread. Why not title it, Justice for the The Terrorist and FIrebomber aka Ray Crump. Or open a web site with that title. Solicit contributions. Bring the guy online--if he's still alive. Make a video for him. Have a testimonial dinner with Roundtree and Janney as your co sponsors. Just be sure that none of his later--and many--victims hears about it. Because the news media will have a field day interviewing those people outside while you area feting Crump inside. I can see the cross cutting now.

When you make that other thread, then you can suitably limit the debate. As long as this one is called what it is, then you are in no position to dictate terms by empty fiat.

Robert Charles-Dunne put it well:

That would be a thread in which you haven't accused without evidence an already-acquitted man of having committed murder. That's why THIS is the thread where our posts belong, because THIS is the thread in which you committed that gross overreach. The fact that you have no credible comeback leads you to now demand our segregation to where you are free to avoid being shown up as empty-handed. I can see why that would suit you. But since we long ago were deprived of the opportunity to ask "Questions For Peter Janney," I will ask them of you.

You demand that others put up or shut up all the time. Now the demand is made of you, and you'd like your inquisitors to be moved safely away.

Jim's response? He didn't really have one.

[Michael Hogan]

More bankruptcy.

The title of this thread is what it is. If you want to change it, try.

We have been through this numerous times. You just keep on repeating these riffs since you have nothing new to say.

Bold added:

That all you care about is the case for or against Crump. Then, as I have repeatedly said, why don't you and Hogan start your own thread! I beg you to do that:

[Guest Tom Scully]

Jim,

maybe you're not aware of it, but Tom has taken up the habit of jumping into threads, belittling the research therein whilst promoting his own work. I was taking him to task in a joking way for taking so long in complaining on this occasion.

..................

Greg, I didn't "get" the joke. I've posted 2277 posts. Even by your liberal standards, how many instances of "invasion" would be necessary to make my opinion that you are grossly exagerating the number of instances you ascribe to me? 23 examples would be one percent of my total posts. Would 23 instances of "invasion" amount to a habit?

http://www.merriam-w...m/medical/habit

Definition of HABIT

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

2: a settled tendency or usual manner of behavior. 3. a : a behavior pattern acquired by frequent repetition or physiological exposure that shows itself in regularity

This is supposed to be a "research forum," Greg. I Know you are aware of this. I know you also are aware that a good many posts in these threads, and some threads themselves, are intended to disrupt, to provoke, to delve into pointless or meaningless tangents.

Some members have chalked up portfolios of a thousand or more posts of sophomoric commentary totally lacking any research related content or analysis. Despite such habitual and predictable posting activity, a surprising number of these individuals are popular and held in relatively high regard although they seem to me, and to others who participate here because it is a research forum, as nuisances and distractors.

Consider your own site, for example, Greg. You are a serious researcher. IMO, there is much to learn from the rich content on your site. Your forum should be a popular hive of activity if popularity went hand in hand with quality, accuracy, and depth.:

http://reopenkennedy...otion.net/forum

It doesn't, but twice now you've made the point that others would agree with John. Others do agree with John.:

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace

(73 customer reviews)

Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath

Average Customer Review

3.8 out of 5 stars (228 customer reviews)

What is your point, Greg? You author a superior website, and I posted this; I believe it.:

...................

I speak with the confidence of what I have learned from looking as deeply into some of these matters as I have ever looked into anything.

.......

There are members with egg on their faces posting here. All of them are held in higher regard and are more popular with those who hold them in higher regard than they hold me.

...................

I speak with the confidence of what I have learned from looking as deeply into some of these matters as I have ever looked into anything.

.......

Peter Janney's book is out in the market place. It appears to be a successful offering. Why does he not use his posting privileges on this forum to accomplish more than extending his attack piece published at Lewrockwell.com?

Greg, you exhibit absolutely no empathy, and neither has anyone else who has given Peter Janney a free pass in the aftermath of his attack, motivated in the midst of his book promotion by what must be a deep and it turns out, well founded insecurity.

.....In the scheme of things, neither Janney nor his book will have any influence on history's final judgement regarding the assassination, so I find this whole debate a triple yawn and a triple waste of time.....

I've gotten a small taste, these past few weeks, of what it must be like to be Jim DiEugenio these past five years since authoring his "Silver Bullets" article. In spite of Jim's authorship of an article so critical of John, membership here was extended to Jim. I am urging John to continue to be as magnanimous as he was when the consensus overwhelmingly was that Jim was more wrong than he was correct in his "Silver Bullets" criticism.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Greg Parker]

Greg, I didn't "get" the joke. I've posted 2277 posts. Even by your liberal standards, how many instances of "invasion" would be necessary to make my opinion that you are grossly exagerating the number of instances you ascribe to me? 23 examples would be one percent of my total posts. Would 23 instances of "invasion" amount to a habit?

Sorry Tom. I was lampooning the speed with which you protest anyone else getting any kudos.

"Invasion" is your word, not mine, so the "" are a bit misleading.

Yes, I've made the point twice that John is entitled to his opinion.

If you are wanting some feedback, I agree it's interesting he chose two people who, by and large, are not researchers, or at least do not, by and large, post much of their own research here.

I never "grossly exaggerated" anything except maybe the speed with which you enter threads to protest anyone else getting any kudos. That was for comic effect.

What I said was that you had "taken up the habit of jumping into threads..." I have highlighted the key phrase because it denotes something you have RECENTLY commenced doing. Your tantrum about me exaggerating numbers is therefore... an exaggeration in itself.

Consider your own site, for example, Greg. You are a serious researcher. IMO, there is much to learn from the rich content on your site. Your forum should be a popular hive of activity if popularity went hand in hand with quality, accuracy, and depth.:

http://reopenkennedy...otion.net/forum

It doesn't, but twice now you've made the point that others would agree with John. Others do agree with John.:

Thank you for the comments about my site. It is all but dead. Unlike every other forum - including this one - I have not gone head-hunting for posters to join. I mistakenly believed it would thrive or wilt based on quality alone. But as I've learned here, people prefer gawking at train wrecks, or watching a brawl.

Yes, I've twice made the point that others would agree with John - about his choice of best posters - not about Janney's book as you seem to suggest, And the second time was only because Jim responded by trying to make the point that you were more worthy. But that's Jim's opinion. My point was, John is entitled to his opinion, and anyone who thinks a lot of people would not agree with him, just isn't paying attention. I mean, a fact is a fact - and that I am personally not exactly fond of one of the two people named (for reasons that I have spelled out previously) - does not change the fact he is popular.

There are members with egg on their faces posting here. All of them are held in higher regard and are more popular with those who hold them in higher regard than they hold me.

Not sure I fully understand what you're getting at except in a general sense you're (again) bemoaning your own perceived lack of popularity. Which brings us back to your taking up the habit of jumping into threads, belittling the research therein and selling your own as a superior offering. That on top of your idiosyncratic moderating and posting styles are hardly the best ways to win friends and influence people.

Peter Janney's book is out in the market place. It appears to be a successful offering. Why does he not use his posting privileges on this forum to accomplish more than extending his attack piece published at Lewrockwell.com?

His book will not stand the test of time, nor will anything in it be used in any lasting solution to the assassination. And Lewrockwell.com may be a popular website, but it too, is irrelevant to any lasting solution, skewed as it by a political/philosophical lens. Such sites will never be anything but a sideshow, regardless of how many readers they boasts.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1. Was it Mike or Robert who found out that the secret black operator who in Janney's bizarre book allegedly killed Meyer, namely Mitchell, did not disappear into the night as Damore and Janney said he did?

2. Was it Mike or Robert who posted the material that strongly indicates that Roundtree was, let us say, less than candid about the alibi she rounded up for her client?

3. Was it Mike or Robert who brought in a second witness about the make up of the jury, both in race and sex?

It was not was it? It was Tom.

In fact, what have Mike and Robert actually brought into this that was any different that what was in Janney's book or what has been posted on this site since John Simkin has been trying to promote Janney's book for oh so many years?

Nothing that I can see. So its predictable that he would then jump in and praise them at Tom's expense even though its Tom who has posted some new stuff here about not just the case, but Janney himself. I find it interesting that his stuff on Alford--who you have taken to task--is congruent with Janney i.e. the Rockefeller connection. Or didn't you notice that?

Simkin has been promoting the whole Janney edifice for years now--hook, line and sinker. That is, Gad what a great researcher Damore was, the whole Leary--Mary Meyer, LSD aspect etc. Although, quite wisely, he has backed off of it today, he even bought into that serial and pathological xxxx David Heymann. Whom he actually pushed on an unsuspecting David Talbot.

So what is the surprise here about which side Simkin is on? None.

Triple yawn.

Tom has contributed several vital things to this thread.

The most important, to my mind, was debunking the notion that witness-cum-assassin Mitchell evaporated without trace. It took Tom whole minutes to shred that one. Had Jim or Lisa Pease thought to do so before him, they need not have bogged themselves down in the quagmire of trying to prove Crump’s guilt without evidence.

Tom also drew attention to the discrepancies in various statements made by Crump and Ms. Roundtree, as pointed out elsewhere by "Culto." There may be some perfectly innocuous reason(s) why these conflicts exist, or they may be what they seem at first blush: evidence of chicanery.

One does hope that those convinced of Crump’s guilt will contact Ms. Roundtree to see if she has an explanation for this. If, that is, they can bother themselves to provide evidence for their own contentions, which doesn’t seem to be the pattern here.

I think any fair reading of this thread will show that I have noted Tom’s above contributions numerous times.

What we have not seen, thus far, is any additional evidence on offer from Jim for his assertion that Crump killed Mary Meyer.

Absent that, there’s not much to say other than to point to the paucity of evidence where a conclusive argument should be. I’ve made that observation, repeatedly, though I’ve yet to elicit from Jim either reasons to think Crump guilty or an acknowledgment that his initial assertion about Crump was an unfounded overreach.

As for the needless popularity contest aspect of all this, I can say only that Tom was selected to be a moderator by John Simkin. If that’s an insufficient vote of confidence, what would be sufficient?

Re: what "side" John Simkin is on, from what little I’ve gleaned about him over the years, I’d say his preference is that we all finally encounter the truth behind Kennedy’s assassination. He’s provided some in-depth research of his own, the means for us to communicate on the topic, and liberally allows dissent from his own opinions, even from moderators, without rancor. He invites authors of new books to comment on their work and field questions from Forum members. I’m not sure what more is expected of him.

Whereas I am positive as to what more is expected of Jim. He has yet to provide any new reasons for his belief in Crump’s guilt. Hence, there are no reasons for us to share that belief with him.

That failing is not Janney’s, or Simkin’s, and has nothing to do with dubious sources Leary, Heymann, et al. It is Jim’s and Jim’s alone.

That has nothing to do with "which side" we’re "on." It has to do with an unwillingness to ante up anything that improves upon the DA’s original sadly lacking brief against Crump. All else is a sideshow diversion to distract our attention from what is still, intentionally, left missing.

Is it just me, or does Jim yawn a lot?

[Dawn Meredith]

"Simkin knew he was doing this. Why he allowed him to proceed as he did is a mystery worthy of Hammett or Marlowe. "

Jim: Why would John Simkin have any say over how Janney "proceeded" with his book?

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

That failing is not Janney's?

You cannot be serious.

Janney was in the position to write an honest book about the Meyer case. He did not do that. Instead he went ahead and wrote a work of radical revisionism--which is the most dangerous type of book to write. (Just witness Lamar Waldron.) And John Simkin served as his publicist. Which leaves him open to criticism.

In Damore, Janney picked up the work of a man who clearly was serving an agenda. (One which may have been aggravated for personal health reasons.) And one of the worst things about his book is that he seems to have accepted all of Damore's work without doing any due diligence. Why he did that, I do not know. Any professional writer worth his salt would have done an extensive review before picking up the baton. By not doing so, Janney hemmed himself into a radical revisionist position.

It is possible to write such a tome. But if one is going to do so, one must proceed very carefully with both solid sourcing, and the greatest care in couching both one's evidence and conclusions. If not, one is left open for criticism.

Well, Janney disobeyed these rules of historical revisionism. And he did so with a non chalance that is a little bit breathtaking. Then, when he is critcized for doing that, how does he respond? Well, we know how he responded: With accusations of the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi book burning, all couched in the harshest terms and illustrated with a painting.

Simkin knew he was doing this. Why he allowed him to proceed as he did is a mystery worthy of Hammett or Marlowe. It was better that no one write a book on the Meyer case instead of the silly and untenable Mary's Mosaic.

But perhaps the most amazing thing about this huge faux pas by Janney is that he got some pals like Horne and Hornberger to promote it on Amazon for him. Such is the state of JFK peer review that people who think they know the JFK case feel they can pass judgment on a case outside of it. Janney gave Horne some information for his book. Therefore Horne decides to scratch Janney's back with his unqualified accolade. And no one asks any questions. Therefore Janney thinks he will get a free ride all the way and no one will poke a hole in his Swiss cheese of a book. And when they do, he hits back with his over the top libelous screed.

If Janney had had better sense to begin with, or if Simkin had been advising him not to try such a radical approach based on the questionable work of Damore, then Janney likely would have written a better book. One which would not have had such questionable data or conclusions. He did not do that. And Janney then blames his critics for his own mistakes. And in the harshest, most stringent terms.

And RCD then says, this is not Janney's fault.

Jim, I take no issue with any of what you’ve written, but it is a nonsensical reply.

Were you to reply to the point made, rather than the point you wish had been made, your batting average on this thread would be far better, Jim. Repeatedly, you have mis-read and/or mis-characterized what others have said, and responded accordingly.

So, let me cite the point, again:

"Whereas I am positive as to what more is expected of Jim. He has yet to provide any new reasons for his belief in Crump’s guilt. Hence, there are no reasons for us to share that belief with him.

That failing is not Janney’s, or Simkin’s, and has nothing to do with dubious sources Leary, Heymann, et al. It is Jim’s and Jim’s alone."

You keep attempting to divert attention away from what is your central failure in this thread: no foundation for your assertion that Crump killed Mary Meyer.

That has nothing to do with Janney, Simkin, Leary, Heymann, or anyone else but you. You have made an assertion; now you must provide evidence for it. You have not done so.

Do you understand now?

[John Simkin]

Janney was in the position to write an honest book about the Meyer case. He did not do that. Instead he went ahead and wrote a work of radical revisionism--which is the most dangerous type of book to write. (Just witness Lamar Waldron.) And John Simkin served as his publicist. Which leaves him open to criticism.

In Damore, Janney picked up the work of a man who clearly was serving an agenda. (One which may have been aggravated for personal health reasons.) And one of the worst things about his book is that he seems to have accepted all of Damore's work without doing any due diligence. Why he did that, I do not know. Any professional writer worth his salt would have done an extensive review before picking up the baton. By not doing so, Janney hemmed himself into a radical revisionist position.

It is possible to write such a tome. But if one is going to do so, one must proceed very carefully with both solid sourcing, and the greatest care in couching both one's evidence and conclusions. If not, one is left open for criticism.

Well, Janney disobeyed these rules of historical revisionism. And he did so with a non chalance that is a little bit breathtaking. Then, when he is critcized for doing that, how does he respond? Well, we know how he responded: With accusations of the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi book burning, all couched in the harshest terms and illustrated with a painting.

Simkin knew he was doing this. Why he allowed him to proceed as he did is a mystery worthy of Hammett or Marlowe. It was better that no one write a book on the Meyer case instead of the silly and untenable Mary's Mosaic.

Jim, you are always telling us what a great historian you are and that you are always very careful about examining the accuracy and reliability of your sources. I am therefore interested in your sources to support your amazing claim that I “allowed” Peter Janney to write his book on Mary Pinchot Meyer.

If you said that I allow you to make attacks on me on the forum I would have more understanding of what you meant.

[Guest Tom Scully]

John, is it unreasonable to assume that Peter Janney's most recent post on this thread, and your most recent two, are the best responses either of you could muster? In hindsight, five years ago, diEugenio's criticism could have been received as constructive. It is not DiEugenio who has turned my opinion of you in a different direction, you, Mr. Janney, and my own googling are primarily responsible for that.

[John Simkin]

John, is it unreasonable to assume that Peter Janney's most recent post on this thread, and your most recent two, are the best responses either of you could muster? In hindsight, five years ago, diEugenio's criticism could have been received as constructive. It is not DiEugenio who has turned my opinion of you in a different direction, you, Mr. Janney, and my own googling are primarily responsible for that.

Maybe you should tell the rest of the Forum what your "Googling" has found out about me.

[Greg Parker]

Janney was in the position to write an honest book about the Meyer case. He did not do that. Instead he went ahead and wrote a work of radical revisionism--which is the most dangerous type of book to write. (Just witness Lamar Waldron.) And John Simkin served as his publicist. Which leaves him open to criticism.

In Damore, Janney picked up the work of a man who clearly was serving an agenda. (One which may have been aggravated for personal health reasons.) And one of the worst things about his book is that he seems to have accepted all of Damore's work without doing any due diligence. Why he did that, I do not know. Any professional writer worth his salt would have done an extensive review before picking up the baton. By not doing so, Janney hemmed himself into a radical revisionist position.

It is possible to write such a tome. But if one is going to do so, one must proceed very carefully with both solid sourcing, and the greatest care in couching both one's evidence and conclusions. If not, one is left open for criticism.

Well, Janney disobeyed these rules of historical revisionism. And he did so with a non chalance that is a little bit breathtaking. Then, when he is critcized for doing that, how does he respond? Well, we know how he responded: With accusations of the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi book burning, all couched in the harshest terms and illustrated with a painting.

Simkin knew he was doing this. Why he allowed him to proceed as he did is a mystery worthy of Hammett or Marlowe. It was better that no one write a book on the Meyer case instead of the silly and untenable Mary's Mosaic.

Jim, you are always telling us what a great historian you are and that you are always very careful about examining the accuracy and reliability of your sources. I am therefore interested in your sources to support your amazing claim that I “allowed” Peter Janney to write his book on Mary Pinchot Meyer.

If you said that I allow you to make attacks on me on the forum I would have more understanding of what you meant.

Janney was in the position to write an honest book about the Meyer case. He did not do that. Instead he went ahead and wrote a work of radical revisionism--which is the most dangerous type of book to write. (Just witness Lamar Waldron.) And John Simkin served as his publicist. Which leaves him open to criticism.

In Damore, Janney picked up the work of a man who clearly was serving an agenda. (One which may have been aggravated for personal health reasons.) And one of the worst things about his book is that he seems to have accepted all of Damore's work without doing any due diligence. Why he did that, I do not know. Any professional writer worth his salt would have done an extensive review before picking up the baton. By not doing so, Janney hemmed himself into a radical revisionist position.

It is possible to write such a tome. But if one is going to do so, one must proceed very carefully with both solid sourcing, and the greatest care in couching both one's evidence and conclusions. If not, one is left open for criticism.

Well, Janney disobeyed these rules of historical revisionism. And he did so with a non chalance that is a little bit breathtaking. Then, when he is critcized for doing that, how does he respond? Well, we know how he responded: With accusations of the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi book burning, all couched in the harshest terms and illustrated with a painting.

Simkin knew he was doing this. Why he allowed him to proceed as he did is a mystery worthy of Hammett or Marlowe. It was better that no one write a book on the Meyer case instead of the silly and untenable Mary's Mosaic.

Jim, you are always telling us what a great historian you are and that you are always very careful about examining the accuracy and reliability of your sources. I am therefore interested in your sources to support your amazing claim that I “allowed” Peter Janney to write his book on Mary Pinchot Meyer

John, I was unable to find any instances of Jim referring to anyone as a great historian here - let alone himself. Was this something you inferred because at some point, Jim has pointed to the amount of care given regarding his accuracy and sources?

One of only a handful of posters who has ever used that phrase here is you in a post where you were quoting someone equating great historians with great anglers willing to change positions in the stream and type of bait used in order to land the prize. You then went on to describe Carro as "great".

But isn't doing the same thing repeatedly (eg standing in the same useless spot, using the same useless bait) and expecting a different result, a known sign of mental illness? So a "great historian" is simply one without mental problems?

There are plenty here standing in the same spot in the stream. They have too many years and too many chips invested in those waters to admit the spot is terrible and the bait is off. My failed invitations to discuss "Harvey and Lee" with Jim and Mike - two of the opposing forces here, but who nevertheless share a fondness for imaginary beings, is evidence of the over-investment they have.

If you said that I allow you to make attacks on me on the forum I would have more understanding of what you meant.

To play Devil's Advocate: I think you are putting too much restraint on the use of the word "allowed". I believe it is possible that Jim was using it in the sense that you simply didn't try and stop him in the same way that someone might be said to have "allowed" someone to jump off a cliff by virtue of failing to take any action to talk them back. That interpretation would seem to be supported by Jim's subsequent reply to Robert and Dawn.

I'm with you on Tom's sly reference to information he claims to have about you through googling. I'm glad you called him on it. I do admire your determination not to be bullied in that way.