Jump to content
The Education Forum

Question for DVP


Recommended Posts

David, did any of your family know either of the Paine's?

No.

Question for Ray Mitcham:

Why did you ask that question?

Footnote----

It's kind of interesting that you'd ask such a question at this time, because just three days ago I re-posted a humorous Internet post that was written by someone at Wim Dankbaar's CT House, which touches on that very subject (maybe that's why Ray asked me the question today):

"Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone for a loop, his plan exactly. According to my findings he is very well educated. One university he likely either attended or taught maybe both was a Quaker college, Guilford. Remember he was from the town that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana, a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family knew Ruth Paine. He may have set on her lap? Now since he is found out, he has decided to come out of the closet as far as his picture. We already knew what he looked like. He thrives on controversy because it keeps everyone off guard. I suspect he is a disinfo agent." -- "Dealey Joe"; August 3, 2010

Original post from Dankbaar's CT crazy house (just so nobody thinks I made up the screwball quote I just posted above):

http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1291&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p27560

----------

Here's my response that I wrote in 2010 [with some of the deserved invective removed; I don't want Pat Speer to jump all over me here at the moderated forum]:

"The above post by "Dealey Joe" is another example of how conspiracy theorists will, to quote Vincent Bugliosi, "leap from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions".

Here's how Dealey Joe came to the grand conclusion that my "family knew Ruth Paine" (which I guess, if true, must mean my mom and dad were in cahoots with Mrs. Paine in a plot to frame Oswald in 1963):

In a blog I created in 2009 about Ruth Paine (located at http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com), I discuss a rather strange and interesting coincidence that occurred in the summer of 1963: Mrs. Paine visited some friends in my hometown of Richmond, Indiana (Ruth had also attended a Quaker conference at Earlham College in Richmond back in 1947, which happened to be the very first "Young Friends" conference she ever attended).

I remarked in my blog that I thought that was a rather strange coincidence for a key person in the JFK-assassination saga to have at least a few ties to my own hometown in eastern Indiana, which is a pretty small town.

So, apparently from those comments that I made about this "connection" between myself, my hometown of Richmond, and Ruth Paine, "Dealey Joe" has leaped to the grand conclusion that my family and Ruth knew each other. And Joe also has concluded that I attended (or taught at) a Quaker university too.

Dealey Joe's investigative skills are a perfect example of why the conspiracy community has been having trouble solving the JFK murder -- i.e.: the community is populated with [--bleep--] when it comes to the topic of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Anyway, to keep Dealey Joe's illusion of me alive, I'll be sure to give Ruth Paine a call tonight. She'll want to know that crackerjack researchers like Dealey Joe have finally unearthed the sinister "Von Pein/Paine" connection. (Hey, even our names are similar. Maybe Joe can work that fact into his next theory.)

I also want to remind Ruth to never travel anywhere ever again. Because if she does, she is bound to stop in a town that has as one of its residents a 2-year-old boy who will have an interest in the JFK murder case in the year 2040. And a deep "connection" like that will be impossible for any LNer to deny." -- DVP; 8/10/2010

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e0e78cb13aae6772

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6464.msg164316.html#msg164316

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim that she [Ruth Paine], as a quaker, could not lie.

Please point me to any such claim that Ruth Paine made about Quakers and liars. I don't recall Ruth ever making such a claim.

Sorry - I thought it was clear enough.

Sorry, it wasn't.

And also - why did you put "" around claim?

Because I think they belonged there. Sorry, I thought it was clear enough.

The whole topic is a moot one anyway -- because Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything.

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

current replies in this hue

GP: The claim that she [Ruth Paine], as a quaker, could not lie.

DVP:

Please point me to any such claim that Ruth Paine made about Quakers and liars. I don't recall Ruth ever making such a claim.

GP: I'm certain that she confirmed it somewhere in her voluminous testimony, but in any case, it's a core Quaker tenet. You weren't aware of that?

Integrity - Integrity can be understood in three ways: Wholeness, soundness and truth. Wholeness means not living life in a compartmentalized way (as the old blues song puts it, "Saturday night I go out to play, but Sunday I go to church and pray"), but rather being genuine and consistent in all aspects of one's life.Soundness means stability--not being swayed to and fro by public opinion but instead standing firm on one's convictions, no matter the cost. Truth, of course, means honesty. The Light shines in the deepest recesses of our innermost being, bringing us to a state of truthfulness before God. It then becomes extremely difficult and uncomfortable to be dishonest with other people. Quakers seek to always be honest, not as an outward rule they must conform to, but as the result of a deep inner conviction.

The Quaker testimony of Integrity manifests in many ways: Quakers do not swear oaths (even in a court of law), believing that--as Jesus said--our "yes" should mean yes and our "no" should mean no (Matthew 5:34-37). To swear an oath to tell the truth implies that, while under oath, one is using a higher standard of truth-telling than at other times. Quakers already endeavor to tell the truth, at all times. Historically, Quakers became renowned for their commitment to honesty. It is said that Quaker merchants were the first in England to set fixed prices on their goods. Prior to that, one had to haggle when purchasing items. Quakers felt it was unfair and dishonest to charge different prices to different customers for the same item, depending on the customer's ability to negotiate. It came to be said that a child could be sent to a Quaker merchant to buy goods without fear of being taken advantage of. Because of the reputation Quakers developed for integrity in business, many became successful. English firms such as Cadbury, Rowntree, Fry and Terry's (all chocolate manufacturers); Barclays Bank; Lloyd's Bank; Carr's Biscuits; Clark's Shoes; Coalbrookdale Iron; Huntsman Steel; the Inman Shipping Line and Waterford-Wedgwood, were founded by Quakers. Interestingly, the Quaker Oats Company was not founded or run by Quakers. The name Quaker Oats was chosen by founding partner Henry Seymour in a conscious attempt to associate his product with qualities that Quakers had become known for: integrity and purity.

http://whatquakersbe...logspot.com.au/

GP: Sorry - I thought it was clear enough.

DVP:

Sorry, it wasn't.

GP: Are you serious? The meaning of this simple question eluded you? "Is Ruth Paine as incapable of lying as she has claimed?"

GP: And also - why did you put "" around claim?

DVP:

Because I think they belonged there. Sorry, I thought it was clear enough.

GP: Nope. Totally pointless.

DVP:

The whole topic is a moot one anyway -- because Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything.

http://dvp-video-aud...ruth-paine.html

GP: Okay. That actually answers my question, even if you have failed to equate your perception of her honesty with her Quaker beliefs...

Then in your opinion, what is contained in this petition for divorce was the truth:

Ruth's petition for divorce stated she separated from Michael on September 1, 1962, and that for 6 months prior to separation, she had suffered a course of "unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical treatment and conduct" at the hands of her husband. [Warren Commission Document 849, p33]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're reaching, Greg. But I love it when CTers try to make Ruth Paine out to be a wicked woman who was trying to frame poor schnook Oswald. Hilarious stuff there.

And you should read some of the vile, unprintable things that the kooks say about Ruth in the comments section on my YouTube videos. You'd think she was Hitler, the Devil, and Norman Bates all rolled into one. It's despicable.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're reaching, Greg

Not at all. You're trying to divert attention away from your dilemma.

Either Ruth lied in a legal document for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, or Michael treated her with cruelty and harshness. Which is it?

But I love it when CTers try to make Ruth Paine out to be a wicked woman who was trying to frame poor schnook Oswald. Hilarious stuff there.

If she was telling the truth, as you claim she always did, and as her religion dictates she should, then how I am making her out to be a "wicked woman" - whatever your fantasy of a "wicked woman" may be? You really do have trouble giving direct responses to direct questions, or responding to anything without reference to your mythical CTs who "always ____ " (fill in the blank with whatever ludicrous generalization you can dream up to support your non-sequitur response).

And you should read some of the vile, unprintable things that the kooks say about Ruth in the comments section on my YouTube videos. You'd think she was Hitler, the Devil, and Norman Bates all rolled into one. It's despicable.

This has nothing to do with what any one says about her. More diversion.

Was she lying in a legal document, or was Michael a total bastard as a husband, to the extent of dishing out cruel and harsh treatment?

Answer the question, David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

David, are you and your brother twins?

How closely related was your paternal grandmother to William F. Buckley, Sr.'s father, John?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was she [Ruth Paine] lying in a legal document, or was Michael a total bastard as a husband, to the extent of dishing out cruel and harsh treatment?

You're being ridiculous, Greg, and you know it.

When I said "Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything", I was referring to the JFK murder case, not her divorce papers (which are always riddled with overstatements like "mental cruelty" and "anguish", etc.).

You can't possibly be serious when you drag out the language utilized in an official divorce document...can you Greg?

I will say -- if that's the best you've got to show that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine was a "wicked woman" and a xxxx, then I don't have anything to worry about here at all. (And neither does Ruth.)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was she [Ruth Paine] lying in a legal document, or was Michael a total bastard as a husband, to the extent of dishing out cruel and harsh treatment?

You're being ridiculous, Greg, and you know it.

How so, David? You must surely be aware of the premium Quakers place on honesty to the extent that they prefer to take affirmations rather than oaths. This preference is based on the belief that taking an oath implies that one might lie, whereas an affirmation implies agreement with the principle of honesty.

When I said "Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything", I was referring to the JFK murder case, not her divorce papers (which are always riddled with overstatements like "mental cruelty" and "anguish", etc.).

The fact that some people lie on legal documents in order to get a divorce is immaterial. We're not talking about "some people". We're talking about Ruth Paine, the Quaker.

You can't possibly be serious when you drag out the language utilized in an official divorce document...can you Greg?

So... are you arguing that she did break with Quaker beliefs by lying about her husband's treatment of her?

I will say -- if that's the best you've got to show that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine was a "wicked woman" and a xxxx, then I don't have anything to worry about here at all. (And neither does Ruth.)

There you go with your fantasies about "wicked women" again. Yet it is YOU - not me who seems to be accusing her of being a xxxx. Remind me never to rely on you to defend my integrity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... are you arguing that she [Ruth Paine] did break with Quaker beliefs by lying about her husband's treatment of her?

Beats me. I don't know. Maybe he was a bastard and mistreated her. I have no idea. And neither do you.

But I do know that official divorce documents such as the one you cited earlier include some rather commonplace and over-the-top language, such as "mental cruelty", etc. It's probably more of a "form" document, to an extent, in terms of some of the terms that are used in those types of court documents, versus anything that Mrs. Paine specifically had written about her husband. But I really don't know (or care).

It is YOU - not me - who seems to be accusing her of being a xxxx.

That's typical CT Think -- black is white and up is down.

Remind me never to rely on you to defend my integrity!

Defending anything about a JFK conspiracy theorist is something I rarely do. So, don't worry. :)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...