The Danger of Conspiracy Theories

[Len Colby]

Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical.

Mr. Hogan,

Spell out to us how any differences between “analogous” and “metaphorical” invalidate my point or justify your 'metaphor' as applied to me (as opposed to Mr. Slattery).

Edited October 19, 2012 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical.

If metaphors were taxed, you'd get a rebate.

[Greg Parker]

Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical.

Mr. Hogan,

Spell out to us how any differences between “analogous” and “metaphorical” invalidate my point or justify your 'metaphor' as applied to me (as opposed to Mr. Slattery).

Hope you haven't been holding your breath, Len.

Not only is he a hypocrite who only ever criticizes those with whom he disagrees - despite having knowledge of the same or worse coming from those with whom he agrees... he is also a coward who hides behind "metaphors" in his libelous insults as a means of circumventing "the rules".

And as a fully paid up member of the "Harvey & Lee" cult, he is among thelast here who should talk about anyone else's ability to reason.

[Len Colby]

Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical.

Mr. Hogan,

Spell out to us how any differences between “analogous” and “metaphorical” invalidate my point or justify your 'metaphor' as applied to me (as opposed to Mr. Slattery).

Hope you haven't been holding your breath, Len.

Not only is he a hypocrite who only ever criticizes those with whom he disagrees - despite having knowledge of the same or worse coming from those with whom he agrees... he is also a coward who hides behind "metaphors" in his libelous insults as a means of circumventing "the rules".

And as a fully paid up member of the "Harvey & Lee" cult, he is among thelast here who should talk about anyone else's ability to reason.

Hogan is an interesting case, he alters keen insights with inane comments and I agree that he displays a double standard, he puts some people on his $#!tlist and is hypercritcal of them but ignores similar or worse misdeeds and errors by those he favors. I also doubt I'll get a reasonable (if any) reply.

[Michael Hogan]

Hope you haven't been holding your breath, Len.

Not only is he a hypocrite who only ever criticizes those with whom he disagrees - despite having knowledge of the same or worse coming from those with whom he agrees... he is also a coward who hides behind "metaphors" in his libelous insults as a means of circumventing "the rules".

And as a fully paid up member of the "Harvey & Lee" cult, he is among thelast here who should talk about anyone else's ability to reason.

Hogan is an interesting case, he alters keen insights with inane comments and I agree that he displays a double standard, he puts some people on his $#!tlist and is hypercritcal of them but ignores similar or worse misdeeds and errors by those he favors. I also doubt I'll get a reasonable (if any) reply.

Hypercritical? I haven't said anything to Len Colby in years. I don't have a list. Who does Len think is on it? He doesn't say.

Although obviously prompted by what Dawn wrote about Len Colby, Evan's post was a generalized and overreaching statement that went beyond Len and Dawn.

I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views..... (bold added)

.....The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position.

It was those blanket (and false) statements that I took exception with when I posted my metaphor. Despite the fact I haven't said anything to him in years, Len chose to believe my statement was directed to him specifically.

It's hard to address vague charges like the ones Len makes above because there are no specifics. Even if there were, I probably wouldn't bother.

As far as Greg Parker, some time ago he started taunting me because I wouldn't join a contentious exchange he was having with David Josephs in a Harvey & Lee thread Greg started. I never posted a word in it. When I refused to respond to his taunts he started following me around to other threads, ramping up his taunting. Because I continued to ignore him, Greg then initiated his nasty name-calling. I suppose that fits his own definition of courage. I've continued to ignore the crap he writes about me.

It's been more than a year since I've said anything at all to Greg. If and when I respond, it will be a time and thread where I choose. Greg's not going to choose it for me.

He did, however, illustrate my metaphor perfectly.

[Len Colby]

Hope you haven't been holding your breath, Len.

Not only is he a hypocrite who only ever criticizes those with whom he disagrees - despite having knowledge of the same or worse coming from those with whom he agrees... he is also a coward who hides behind "metaphors" in his libelous insults as a means of circumventing "the rules".

And as a fully paid up member of the "Harvey & Lee" cult, he is among thelast here who should talk about anyone else's ability to reason.

Hogan is an interesting case, he alters keen insights with inane comments and I agree that he displays a double standard, he puts some people on his $#!tlist and is hypercritcal of them but ignores similar or worse misdeeds and errors by those he favors. I also doubt I'll get a reasonable (if any) reply.

Hypercritical? I haven't said anything to Len Colby in years.

True but there was a period when I obviously a favoured target of your wrath, Even was one as well.

I don't have a list. Who does Len think is on it? He doesn't say.

The term is a figure of speech rarely meant to indicate their is an actual list.

Although obviously prompted by what Dawn wrote about Len Colby, Evan's post was a generalized and overreaching statement that went beyond Len and Dawn.

EVAN BURTON:I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views.....

(bold added)

.....The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position

.

It was those blanket (and false) statements that I took exception with when I posted my metaphor. Despite the fact I haven't said anything to him in years, Len chose to believe my statement was directed to him specifically.

That rationalization would have been plausible if it had been made at the time of your previous post. Based on context it was logical to assume your "statement was directed to [me] specifically"

It's hard to address vague charges like the ones Len makes above because there are no specifics. Even if there were, I probably wouldn't bother.

[Greg Parker]

Hope you haven't been holding your breath, Len.

Not only is he a hypocrite who only ever criticizes those with whom he disagrees - despite having knowledge of the same or worse coming from those with whom he agrees... he is also a coward who hides behind "metaphors" in his libelous insults as a means of circumventing "the rules".

And as a fully paid up member of the "Harvey & Lee" cult, he is among thelast here who should talk about anyone else's ability to reason.

Hogan is an interesting case, he alters keen insights with inane comments and I agree that he displays a double standard, he puts some people on his $#!tlist and is hypercritcal of them but ignores similar or worse misdeeds and errors by those he favors. I also doubt I'll get a reasonable (if any) reply.

Hypercritical? I haven't said anything to Len Colby in years. I don't have a list. Who does Len think is on it? He doesn't say.

Len said you were hypocritical insofar as you use a double-standard, depending on who you're dealing with. He never specifically mentioned himself, let alone suggested this applied only to him.

Although obviously prompted by what Dawn wrote about Len Colby, Evan's post was a generalized and overreaching statement that went beyond Len and Dawn.

I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views..... (bold added)

.....The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position.

It was those blanket (and false) statements that I took exception with when I posted my metaphor. Despite the fact I haven't said anything to him in years, Len chose to believe my statement was directed to him specifically.

Except as Len has already said, that dodge doesn't work since you already replied with your look up a dictionary "quip" which Dawn thought was so chuckle-worthy.

There was also your comment attached to your "metaphor" "Just a rhetorical, metaphorical question." You may as well have added, "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."

It's hard to address vague charges like the ones Len makes above because there are no specifics. Even if there were, I probably wouldn't bother.

Well, let's start with this thread, where among other hypercritical moments, including the different standards you applied to me and Jack White, you accused me of falsely attributing a quote to Armstrong. What did you do when shown to be wrong? Disappeared quicker than a rat up a drain-pipe. Specific enough for you, Mike?

http://educationforu...pic=16943&st=90

As far as Greg Parker, some time ago he started taunting me

And you had the unmitigated gall to call me a whiner for asking Jack White to stop hijacking my threads for the purpose of pimping for Armstrong?

This is your idea of a taunt:

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://educationforu...p?showforum=126

http://educationforu...210#entry259170

because I wouldn't join a contentious exchange he was having with David Josephs in a Harvey & Lee thread Greg started. I never posted a word in it. When I refused to respond to his taunts he started following me around to other threads,

Pure paranoia. We belong to the same forum, It's hardly against the odds that we read some of the same threads. I did take the opportunity to try and get you to join the Harvey & Lee thread a couple of times. You had no problem coming in to help Jack White back when. And by the way... it wasn't me who made it "contentious". It was your fellow cult members playing "but what about..." every time one pin fell. Go back to the first post in the thread. I set a few areas I wanted to explore, but some just can't help themselves and derailed it.

ramping up his taunting. Because I continued to ignore him, Greg then initiated his nasty name-calling. I suppose that fits his own definition of courage. I've continued to ignore the crap he writes about me.

You are a hypocrite and a coward, You've earned both those epithets. But i suppose I could have taken the cowardly route and couched them in oh say... a metaphor... what you're alluding to above has nothing to do with "courage". It's an attempt to get you to man up to your own behavior.

It's been more than a year since I've said anything at all to Greg. If and when I respond, it will be a time and thread where I choose. Greg's not going to choose it for me.

Yes, I know it's been more than a year. I'm still waiting to get an apology for your false accusation. That thread was the one where I finally learned you did not warrant any further benefit of any doubt.

He did, however, illustrate my metaphor perfectly.

How so? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

What I have learned is that I could say something like "how about I just rip out your spleen"? If I add "Metaphorically, of course." it's all okay. Except I don't hide behind metaphors. Not even pretend ones. That's just plain sly and craven.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Karl Kinaski]

Back ON TOPIC : truth (and truth in this case means conspiracy)maybe a danger for your health. Maybe you never reach your retirement age ...but it is always a good thing for your brain...you simply like the man in the mirror in front of you...

kk

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

Why are you so combative? Michael Hogan is one of the few people on this forum who is consistently civil in his posts. I find him to be lucid and well spoken. Okay, we understand you think those who subscribe to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory are "cultists." We get that- you've made it abundantly clear. You do a thorough job of delineating why you feel the way you do. But you cross a line, which you seem to habitually cross, when you cavalierly call Michael "a hypocrite and a coward."

Jack White was a true believer in Armstrong's theory, but there are many of us, and Michael may be in that group, who respect the tireless research he produced, without necessarily swallowing the entire "Harvey and Lee" scenario. In your world, does disagreement equal cowardice?

Armstrong's "conspiracy theory" certainly has more validity than the official story of the JFK assassination. That doesn't mean it's completely right, but it does have the right to exist, doesn't it? Your passion in countering Armstrong's work reminds me of Josiah Thompson't fervor in opposing film alterationists.

I'm sure Len does, but do you see "danger" in "conspiracy theories?"

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

What a surprise you'd turn up with one of your 'Howdy-Doody' lectures.

Why are you so combative?

I got sick of turning the other cheek. And I don't believe in half measures, fake manners, or calling a spade an implement for digging.

Michael Hogan is one of the few people on this forum who is consistently civil in his posts. I find him to be lucid and well spoken.

Good for you. That is exactly how he presents and how he wants to be seen. But you haven't been the recipient of his double-standards. You are not owed what he demands of others when they're shown to be wrong - an apology. You haven't been the target of one of his "wink wink nudge nudge, I'm not breaking the rules" cowardly metaphors. Ted Bundy was also very polite - as no doubt white collar criminals such as Jack Abramoff are. So what?

Okay, we understand you think those who subscribe to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory are "cultists." We get that- you've made it abundantly clear. You do a thorough job of delineating why you feel the way you do. But you cross a line, which you seem to habitually cross, when you cavalierly call Michael "a hypocrite and a coward."

I'd suggest you do some fact-checking before making claims that I'm being "cavalier". He is demonstrably both. I asked Jack White numerous times to stop hijacking my Oswald threads for his shilling of "Harvey and Lee". Mike Hogan took it upon himself to defend Jack and start finding nits to pick with my work in retaliation for my dismantling of Armstrong's work. If Mike wants to play the role of unofficial moderator, or the moral compass of the group, then he set himself up for accusations of bias and double standards when he remained mute (as did you and every other actual "mod") while Jack White attacked my research ability. He set himself up for being labelled a hypocrite when he disappeared as soon as his accusation against me was proven wrong. In similar circumstances involving others, he would be offering advice on the need to apologize. Read the damn thread I pointed to. Or any of several others I could have pointed to to illustrate the same things. His cowardice is evidenced by his "metaphors" and his unwillingness to join the thread I invited both he and Jim di to. His excuse that he won't talk to me until he is "ready' to on his terms is just that - an excuse - as was his false claim that I was stalking him across this board with taunts.

He didn't because he knew "Harvey & Lee" was being buried as junk theory. Jim at least turned up, even if not for long and not with very much to offer.

But you won't look into the antecedents to this. You prefer being willfully blind to those who you believe to be "polite" and "civil". And I offer an easy target because I DON'T hide behind false civility, metaphors or any other bullxxxx.

Jack White was a true believer in Armstrong's theory, but there are many of us, and Michael may be in that group, who respect the tireless research he produced, without necessarily swallowing the entire "Harvey and Lee" scenario. In your world, does disagreement equal cowardice?

Jesus H Christ you can be painful in your twisting of things. Where oh WHERE did I ever equate "cowardice" with disagreement over a theory? The inference is both wrong and insulting.

Armstrong's "conspiracy theory" certainly has more validity than the official story of the JFK assassination.

What a strange thing to say: One fairy tale is truer than another? Who cares. I want the facts - not the government fairy tale, nor the White/Armstrong variety.

That doesn't mean it's completely right, but it does have the right to exist, doesn't it?

That's fine with me. That didn't give Jack White the right to hijack my threads to shill for it.

Your passion in countering Armstrong's work reminds me of Josiah Thompson't fervor in opposing film alterationists.

I don't give a xxxx what it reminds you of.

I'm sure Len does, but do you see "danger" in "conspiracy theories?"

Do you see none in any of them? All are "equal"? All are "good"? All help get the historical record straightened out?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Michael Hogan]

Greg,

Why are you so combative? Michael Hogan is one of the few people on this forum who is consistently civil in his posts. I find him to be lucid and well spoken. Okay, we understand you think those who subscribe to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory are "cultists." We get that- you've made it abundantly clear. You do a thorough job of delineating why you feel the way you do. But you cross a line, which you seem to habitually cross, when you cavalierly call Michael "a hypocrite and a coward."

Jack White was a true believer in Armstrong's theory, but there are many of us, and Michael may be in that group, who respect the tireless research he produced, without necessarily swallowing the entire "Harvey and Lee" scenario. In your world, does disagreement equal cowardice?

Armstrong's "conspiracy theory" certainly has more validity than the official story of the JFK assassination. That doesn't mean it's completely right, but it does have the right to exist, doesn't it? Your passion in countering Armstrong's work reminds me of Josiah Thompson't fervor in opposing film alterationists.

I'm sure Len does, but do you see "danger" in "conspiracy theories?"

Thanks for your support Don. I appreciate it.

Take away the insults, the untruths and half-truths from Greg Parker's response to you and there wouldn't be much of that colored font left.

Greg has puked all over himself.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Greg,

Why are you so combative? Michael Hogan is one of the few people on this forum who is consistently civil in his posts. I find him to be lucid and well spoken. Okay, we understand you think those who subscribe to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory are "cultists." We get that- you've made it abundantly clear. You do a thorough job of delineating why you feel the way you do. But you cross a line, which you seem to habitually cross, when you cavalierly call Michael "a hypocrite and a coward."

Jack White was a true believer in Armstrong's theory, but there are many of us, and Michael may be in that group, who respect the tireless research he produced, without necessarily swallowing the entire "Harvey and Lee" scenario. In your world, does disagreement equal cowardice?

Armstrong's "conspiracy theory" certainly has more validity than the official story of the JFK assassination. That doesn't mean it's completely right, but it does have the right to exist, doesn't it? Your passion in countering Armstrong's work reminds me of Josiah Thompson't fervor in opposing film alterationists.

I'm sure Len does, but do you see "danger" in "conspiracy theories?"

Thanks for your support Don. I appreciate it.

Take away the insults, the untruths and half-truths from Greg Parker's response to you and there wouldn't be much of that colored font left.

Greg has puked all over himself.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

There is no love lost between Greg Parker and myself, yet I find myself turned off under similar influences and for similar reasons. I am not posting this as a moderator, insofar as it is possible, and I am assuming Don Jeffries is and I do not want to interfere with that. I am posting because it is an awkward situation into which I am interjecting myself, and because this is one of those times I would want someone to have my back if I was in the situation Greg finds himself in/ has put himself in, now, but almost always, it doesn't happen.

Greg and I seem to share a frustration in that contributors here actively engaged in posting their research findings are bumping up against a group of impressive unity and impenetrable inflexibility. One thing you can say about them though, they certainly demonstrate that they have each other's backs.

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

The reason my posts often sound like lectures is because so many good researchers here simply refuse to express themselves appropriately. Most of us are middle-aged here; do you normally act so beligerant in your personal conversations with others? I can understand the impulsive nature of youth, the tendency to curse, etc. I don't get people in their 40s and 50s acting the way so many posters here do.

I've said it far too many times on this forum, but the way you say something does affect how it's perceived by others. You can have the greatest information in the world, the most earth shattering revelations imaginable, but if you accompany them with juvenile insults and profanity, there are still a lot of people who will disregard the brillance of your argument. I don't think your arguments against Armstrong's work are brilliant, but you have made some good points, imho.

You clearly hold a grudge- why are you still castigating the late Jack White over the allged hijacking of your threads? Yes, Jack could too easily dismiss those who opposed him. He was often too quick to judge. He wasn't perfect, but trashing his memory only serves to make you look petty. He was not only a true believer in Armstrong's theory; I think they were personal friends. He probably had a lot invested in Armstrong's research. He was a bold and radical man, and I'm sure I'm not the only one offended that you would still be debating someone who no longer can defend himself. Why can't you understand that peope can honestly oppose your views and theories, without being "cowards" or "hypocrites?"

You appear now to be engaged in a personal, rather petty feud with Michael Hogan. I only know Michael from his posts on this forum. While you may have astutely identified his unattractive characteristics, from what I can determine he is one of the most reasonable posters here. Of course, it helps that I usually agree with what he says, but even if I didn't, I couldn't help but be favorably impressed by how he says it.

[Greg Parker]

Thanks for your support Don. I appreciate it.

Take away the insults, the untruths and half-truths from Greg Parker's response to you and there wouldn't be much of that colored font left.

Greg has puked all over himself.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

Your insults are ham-fisted and tired. Suggest you contact Paul Rigby for some private tuition.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Why are you so combative? Michael Hogan is one of the few people on this forum who is consistently civil in his posts. I find him to be lucid and well spoken. Okay, we understand you think those who subscribe to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory are "cultists." We get that- you've made it abundantly clear. You do a thorough job of delineating why you feel the way you do. But you cross a line, which you seem to habitually cross, when you cavalierly call Michael "a hypocrite and a coward."

Jack White was a true believer in Armstrong's theory, but there are many of us, and Michael may be in that group, who respect the tireless research he produced, without necessarily swallowing the entire "Harvey and Lee" scenario. In your world, does disagreement equal cowardice?

Armstrong's "conspiracy theory" certainly has more validity than the official story of the JFK assassination. That doesn't mean it's completely right, but it does have the right to exist, doesn't it? Your passion in countering Armstrong's work reminds me of Josiah Thompson't fervor in opposing film alterationists.

I'm sure Len does, but do you see "danger" in "conspiracy theories?"

Thanks for your support Don. I appreciate it.

Take away the insults, the untruths and half-truths from Greg Parker's response to you and there wouldn't be much of that colored font left.

Greg has puked all over himself.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

There is no love lost between Greg Parker and myself, yet I find myself turned off under similar influences and for similar reasons. I am not posting this as a moderator, insofar as it is possible, and I am assuming Don Jeffries is and I do not want to interfere with that. I am posting because it is an awkward situation into which I am interjecting myself, and because this is one of those times I would want someone to have my back if I was in the situation Greg finds himself in/ has put himself in, now, but almost always, it doesn't happen.

Greg and I seem to share a frustration in that contributors here actively engaged in posting their research findings are bumping up against a group of impressive unity and impenetrable inflexibility. One thing you can say about them though, they certainly demonstrate that they have each other's backs.

No, Tom, we do not see eye-to-eye, but I have said more than once, of the problems I have with you, none are based around you being deliberately provocative. Under the circumstance, and given our own run-ins, it is appreciated that you stuck your head out of the trenches.