Greg Parker Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) 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). Now you're just making stuff up, David. There is no such thing as a "form document" that has those specific terms. But even if there were, and you signed such a document, and it was untrue, you are creating a false instrument to obtain a benefit (in this case, a divorce). It is an illegal practice. If you make the charge that you want a divorce on the basis of tyrannical treatment, you have to back that up with evidence in court. 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. Where have I accused her of being a xxxx? I asked you if you thought she was capable of lying. At first you were quite sure she was not. Now you're equivocating. 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. I am eternally grateful. But if I were Ruth, I'd be a bit nervous about having you on my side. Let’s recap: When asked if Ruth Paine was incapable of lying, David at first affected a lack of understanding of the question. After that was more or less cleared up, he tried to dismiss the question by claiming it was moot on the grounds that “Ruth Paine didn’t lie about anything”. In response to that, I asked whether he thought she was being truthful in statements she made in her petition for divorce, which accused her then husband of treating her in an unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical manner. David responded with the childish tactic of trying to divert attention by referring to un-named “others” who he claims make her out to be a “wicked woman”. Certainly, nowhere had I made such a claim. When I called him for his attempted diversion, he claimed that when he said "Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything", he was referring only to the JFK murder case. He then went on to suggest that as some people do lie in order to obtain a divorce, it was no big deal for Ruth Paine to do it, and that I must be joking in order to suggest otherwise. So where does that leave us... according to David, Ruth Paine was a paragon of virtue under affirmation about the assassination, her family history and her relationships in Dallas, Ohio, New York and Philadelphia, but lied when it suited her in other facets of her life – something which is against core beliefs and practices of Quakers. Now his latest attempt to rescue the situation is to guess that there must be "form documents" in which language like "cruelty" etc is used to obtain divorces. It seems there are no depths to which he is not willing to go. The bottom line is that David is her accuser here – no matter how much he protests about what unnamed others call her – and no matter what divorce "form documents" he summons with his vast imagination. All I did was ask a simple question. Edited June 18, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) You're funny, Greg. (In a much to-do about nothing respect, that is.) Edited June 18, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) You're funny, Greg. (In a much to-do about nothing respect, that is.) Nice. But I for one, do not take actual spousal abuse, or false allegations of same, as some type of joke. Here are some examples of her Quaker faith in action: Quakers do not believe in a power structures of any kind, and they have a very egalitarian religious practice. Men and women of all social ranks are considered equal by Quakers, just as they are in the eyes of God. Yet you have quoted her on your blog as calling Oswald a "shaky and inadequate person." If you call someone an "inadequate person", you are by definition, putting yourself above them. Quakers are also called to help the less fortunate -- yet when Oswald asked for her help getting a lawyer, Ruth Paine - a member of the ACLU - ignored his pleas. Quakers are supposed to respect privacy of others - yet she copied down a personal letter of Oswald's and gave it to the FBI. She claimed to be a pacifist - yet there is this from her testimony... Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, if you had become aware prior to November 22 of the fact, if it be a fact, that there was a rifle in the blanket wrapped package on the floor of your garage, what do you think now you would have done? Mrs. PAINE - I can say certainly I would not have wanted it there. And that my pacifist feelings would have entered into my consideration of the subject. I cannot say certainly what I would have done, of course. And, as I have described myself and my beliefs, I like to consider the situation that I am in and react according to that situation, rather than to have doctrine or rigid belief. I can certainly say this. I would have asked that it be entirely out of reach of children or out of sight of children. One last thing about Quakers, which gets to the heart of Ruth Paine's actions: Quakers are expected to translate their inner faith into direct action. For example, if the inner spirit moves a Quaker to believe that cruelty to dogs is wrong, he or she must act to put a stop to that practice. Now take a Quaker whose inner spirit moves them to believe Communism is wrong... Edited June 19, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Greg, I beleive that Mr. Von Pein is taking a modified Gregory House position. On the TV program "House, M.D.", it was the belief of Dr, Gregory House that "Everyone lies." Von Pein's position apparently is, "Everyone lies...especially CT'ers...but NO ONE lied to the Warren Commission [unless their testimony might cast doubt on Oswald's guilt...then every word they said was a lie]." But did you REALLY expect any other response from Von Pein? Be honest now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Mark's funny too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Did I say anything that wasn't true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Did I say anything that wasn't true? Yes, of course: "Von Pein's position apparently is, "Everyone lies...especially CT'ers...but NO ONE lied to the Warren Commission [unless their testimony might cast doubt on Oswald's guilt...then every word they said was a lie]."" I've never once said anyone lied to the Warren Commission (not even any "conspiracy" witnesses). The only two people (i.e., witnesses) I've ever called "liars" are Jean Hill and Roger Craig. But even they didn't lie to the Warren Commission. Their provable lies didn't manifest themselves until years later. Edited June 19, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Did I say anything that wasn't true? Yes, of course: "Von Pein's position apparently is, "Everyone lies...especially CT'ers...but NO ONE lied to the Warren Commission [unless their testimony might cast doubt on Oswald's guilt...then every word they said was a lie]."" I've never once said anyone lied to the Warren Commission (not even any "conspiracy" witnesses). The only two people (i.e., witnesses) I've ever called "liars" are Jean Hill and Roger Craig. But even they didn't lie to the Warren Commission. Their provable lies didn't manifest themselves until years later. Strange then that they both started to lie simultaneously At 12:30 on the same day!. But obviously not strange enough?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Jean Hill and Roger Craig didn't start to lie until much later. They told the truth initially about what they saw and heard. Hill was truthful on Day 1 when she said she heard shots coming from the Knoll. (She was mistaken, of course, but she wasn't lying.) And Craig was truthful about seeing somebody get in a Rambler. It just couldn't have been Oswald. But his "7.65 Mauser was stamped on the rifle" lie didn't crop up until years later -- certainly well after 1968, which is when Craig told the LA Free Press that he had no idea what type of gun it was. Edited June 19, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Why could it not have been Oswald?. 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