Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Danger of Conspiracy Theories


Recommended Posts

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?

No need. I don't hang out with sly, hypocritical, demagogic cowards. How about you?

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.

Yes. Your setting up straw men below in an attempt to influence how I am perceived here does say a lot about you. You are a sly, demagogic fraud. Metaphorically speaking of course.

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.

Attempt to put words in my mouth #1

I never said I was brilliant. I never said my work was brilliant. I do point out I would have liked the same opportunity as anyone else to present my work without being over-run by "Harvey" zealots.

Moreover, since you raise it, no brilliance was needed to do a little research on riots in Fort Worth in 1956-58 period. Just a standard verification procedure. So why didn't Armstrong do it? It didn't take brilliance to work out some codes in the Beauregard files which proved beyond doubt the paperwork pertains to the historic LHO. Yet for 20 years, Armstrong told people the file supported his work, and supporters uncritically lapped it up.

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.

Attempt to put words in my mouth #2

This wasn't about Jack. He was background to this current situation with Mike. That is why I referred to it as "antecedent".

Why can't you understand that peope can honestly oppose your views and theories, without being "cowards" or "hypocrites?"

Attempt to put words in my mouth #3

What makes this one particularly offensive is that I had already explained to you that I made no connection whatsoever between hypocrisy and cowardice and oppositional views. Those former two pertain to behavior. That you have repeated this even after being corrected, tells me it is no misunderstanding. You are deliberately doing it. And this post is far from the first time.

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.

Yes, I know. This forum does favor style over substance. I always said the path to historical truth is paved with 19th century laird-of-the- manor etiquette. You can't really interpret an FBI report unless your little pinky is pointing up.

Here is the point of no return between me and Mike. As can be seen, I was making the effort to be conciliatory:

Mike 11/21/10

But
when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not
and justify doing so by referencing some obscure blogger that didn't even claim that Armstrong said it, it reminded me of the discussion I had with you over AMORC, Rosicrucianism, and radionics. It was back then that I saw what lengths you would go to to try and prove the unprovable and what questionable internet sources you would summon.

---------------------------------

My reply to the above, 11/23/10

Mike,

I did not use a "blogger" to back up an assertion. You've got the cart before the horse. Rather, I came across the quote and noted the "blogger" cited Armstrong as a source. Though as you say, his citations were for the entire article, I think most reading it would assume as I did, that the cites applied to all main points made.

What was my response when you corrected me?

"Fair enough, Mike".

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my intent with that comment, should you ever correct me again, I'll be sure to add "Thank you for the correction."

I also apologised
if
I had it wrong. The qualification was only there because of your coyness as to what you apparently knew all along.

----------------------------------------

Mike, 11/23/10

"Finally, your [Greg] claim that most people reading the blogger's quote of Marina would make the same assumption that you did, that it came from Armstrong, is specious.
Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that
Marina Oswald said those exact words
.
There were other authors cited by the blogger; what made you think that it was something Armstrong claimed? I'll give you a one word answer - vendetta."

The above was Mike’s last post in the thread. The following is the reason why. No apology has ever been made.

------------------------------------

Doug Weldon chimed in 12/02/10

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

-----------------------------------------------

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

For once, it looks like Don left Greg Parker speechless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once, it looks like Don left Greg Parker speechless.

Huhhh? He replied.

Mr. Hogan definitely has problems admitting error. A few years ago he lambasted me claiming I'd misquoted him and pulled up a similar but different quote he'd made months before, but he'd forgotten about a post he'd made only a few days earlier in which he used the exact words I'd attributed to him but he never acknowledged his mistake even after I posted a link to the quote in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad move, not because the edit is wrong or whatever but because it allows this sort of diversionary tactic to be used. Provide an edit reason. This silly sniping is already wasting time. People and truths are dropping like flies. Don't make it personal. There's going to be enough garbage to deal with heading our way. Time out.

edit typos

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once, it looks like Don left Greg Parker speechless.

Huhhh? He replied.

Check the edit times Len.

I noticed that but assumed it was some sort of minor edit, are you saying he edited in the reply to Don after you called him on not doing so? If so that was pretty sleazy.

Is that true Greg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once, it looks like Don left Greg Parker speechless.

Huhhh? He replied.

Check the edit times Len.

I noticed that but assumed it was some sort of minor edit, are you saying he edited in the reply to Don after you called him on not doing so? If so that was pretty sleazy.

Is that true Greg?

Len, I had some major problems with replying. This was MkII. My first reply was lost just before I was about to post it because the browser suddenly decided to shut down. In the second attempt, I accidentally hit the "add reply" button before I'd made one key stroke (I think I meant to click the "more reply options" button). Anyhow, I realized straight away what I'd done and simply went into edit mode. The sleaze is all his because he would have seen I was working on the post at the time he made his reply. I had no idea what he'd said until I'd finished my post.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad move, not because the edit is wrong or whatever but because it allows this sort of diversionary tactic to be used. Provide an edit reason.

That's all it was, John, and I don't think an edit reason would have mattered. I mean, really. Why the hell would I do such an obvious thing as go and edit AFTER seeing what he wrote. For that matter, why the hell would I deliberately post a reply without actually saying anything in the first place.

This silly sniping is already wasting time. People and truths are dropping like flies. Don't make it personal. There's going to be enough garbage to deal with heading our way. Time out.

Too late for time out. As I showed... my attempts in 2010 to be conciliatory were ignored. And in the end he was shown to be wrong in his accusation against me anyway. His response? Disappear. He is a coward and now you can add sleaze to the list. I'm not surprised Don has his back. I simply refuse to take their crap any longer.

Yes, people and truth dropping like flies. That's not my fault. My own work continues regardless of any issues here.

edit typos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

No need. I don't hang out with sly, hypocritical, demagogic cowards. How about you?

So now you've added another pejorative to your name calling. How is Michael Hogan a demagogue?

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.

Yes. Your setting up straw men below in an attempt to influence how I am perceived here does say a lot about you. You are a sly, demagogic fraud. Metaphorically speaking of course.

And now you turn the name calling towards me. Simply stating that a point will be perceived better if there is no juvenile name calling or profanity involved is setting up a straw man? Well, at least you are calling me a sly demagogue, which I suppose is better than being your garden variety type. But a fraud? Do I post any differently than I urge everyone else to? Calling me Howdy Doody (which I didn't quite understand) is one thing, but a fraud? You need to come up with a different slur.

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.

Attempt to put words in my mouth #1

I never said I was brilliant. I never said my work was brilliant. I do point out I would have liked the same opportunity as anyone else to present my work without being over-run by "Harvey" zealots.

Moreover, since you raise it, no brilliance was needed to do a little research on riots in Fort Worth in 1956-58 period. Just a standard verification procedure. So why didn't Armstrong do it? It didn't take brilliance to work out some codes in the Beauregard files which proved beyond doubt the paperwork pertains to the historic LHO. Yet for 20 years, Armstrong told people the file supported his work, and supporters uncritically lapped it up.

You missed my point entirely. I was saying that no matter how brilliant your arguments, or anyone else's arguments are, their effectiveness can be diminished by the manner in which they're presented. You appear to want to play the role of a gruff, tough, tell-it-like-it-is renegade. That's fine, but expect people to be turned off by that, and to tune out your arguments.

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.

Attempt to put words in my mouth #2

This wasn't about Jack. He was background to this current situation with Mike. That is why I referred to it as "antecedent".

Why can't you understand that peope can honestly oppose your views and theories, without being "cowards" or "hypocrites?"

Attempt to put words in my mouth #3

What makes this one particularly offensive is that I had already explained to you that I made no connection whatsoever between hypocrisy and cowardice and oppositional views. Those former two pertain to behavior. That you have repeated this even after being corrected, tells me it is no misunderstanding. You are deliberately doing it. And this post is far from the first time.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I see a clear connection between the alleged cowardice and hypocrisy of Michael Hogan, and the fact you coincidentally are having intense debates with him. That's human nature, I suppose- we don't usually expend such energy on the supposed faults of those who are agreeing with us. If your definition of a "coward" is someone who tires of debating someone when there will obviously be no consensus arrived at, then we all are probably cowards at one time or another. I also have to admit that I find the liberal usage of a sobriquet like "coward" to be only a few steps more mature than calling someone "chicken." But then again, perhaps I am just a coward, too.

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.

Yes, I know. This forum does favor style over substance. I always said the path to historical truth is paved with 19th century laird-of-the- manor etiquette. You can't really interpret an FBI report unless your little pinky is pointing up.

I don't think we become aristocratic snobs merely by suggesting someone be polite. Common courtesy is an important element in any civilized society, even if it's usually just mindless rote. The great Ambrose Bierce defined politeness as the most acceptable form of hypocrisy. Do you object to saying "thank you" as well?

Btw, I have no beef with you. I think you're a solid researcher, who has much to offer. I read the first chapter of your online book and was impressed. I hope you get a publisher and look forward to reading the entire thing. I don't know why you have to be so confrontational with individuals, be it David Lifton or Michael Hogan. Concentrate on your own research, and perhaps we'll all find a good deal of value in it.

Here is the point of no return between me and Mike. As can be seen, I was making the effort to be conciliatory:

Mike 11/21/10

But
when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not
and justify doing so by referencing some obscure blogger that didn't even claim that Armstrong said it, it reminded me of the discussion I had with you over AMORC, Rosicrucianism, and radionics. It was back then that I saw what lengths you would go to to try and prove the unprovable and what questionable internet sources you would summon.

---------------------------------

My reply to the above, 11/23/10

Mike,

I did not use a "blogger" to back up an assertion. You've got the cart before the horse. Rather, I came across the quote and noted the "blogger" cited Armstrong as a source. Though as you say, his citations were for the entire article, I think most reading it would assume as I did, that the cites applied to all main points made.

What was my response when you corrected me?

"Fair enough, Mike".

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my intent with that comment, should you ever correct me again, I'll be sure to add "Thank you for the correction."

I also apologised
if
I had it wrong. The qualification was only there because of your coyness as to what you apparently knew all along.

----------------------------------------

Mike, 11/23/10

"Finally, your [Greg] claim that most people reading the blogger's quote of Marina would make the same assumption that you did, that it came from Armstrong, is specious.
Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that
Marina Oswald said those exact words
.
There were other authors cited by the blogger; what made you think that it was something Armstrong claimed? I'll give you a one word answer - vendetta."

The above was Mike’s last post in the thread. The following is the reason why. No apology has ever been made.

------------------------------------

Doug Weldon chimed in 12/02/10

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

-----------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.

Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.

Greg Parker wanted this confrontation. He couldn't stand that I was repeatedly ignoring his taunts on all the other threads so he figured he would go ahead and jump in and call me a coward on this one.

Before this thread I hadn't responded to anything he's written in well over a year, When people show they can't stick to the truth, it becomes a waste of time dealing with them at any length.

------------------------------------

Doug Weldon chimed in 12/02/10

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

-----------------------------------------------

The late Doug Weldon was a fine researcher and by all accounts a good and honorable man. He measured his words and almost never spoke poorly of anyone.

In the thread referenced by Greg, this is what he had to say:

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.

Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.

I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.

Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.

Greg Parker wanted this confrontation. He couldn't stand that I was repeatedly ignoring his taunts on all the other threads so he figured he would go ahead and jump in and call me a coward on this one.

Before this thread I hadn't responded to anything he's written in well over a year, When people show they can't stick to the truth, it becomes a waste of time dealing with them at any length.

------------------------------------

Doug Weldon chimed in 12/02/10

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

-----------------------------------------------

The late Doug Weldon was a fine researcher and by all accounts a good and honorable man. He measured his words and almost never spoke poorly of anyone.

In the thread referenced by Greg, this is what he had to say:

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.

Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.

I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.

Wow. I can barely read this stuff...Mike: yes just ignore them. Otherwise they will just try to wear you down with insult after insult.

The time wasted by Greg is astounding to me. AM I recalling this correctly: He is on record here as never reading Harvery and Lee. Nuff said.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

........

I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.

Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.

I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.

Mr. Hogan, the fact is, I did not post your name, yet you show the temerity and disrespect to post about me in the way you did. My comments were directed to Don Jeffries because I agreed with Greg that Don's theme is off putting.

http://educationforu...495#entry252638

Michael Hogan Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:36 PM (quote]

snapback.pngRalph Cinque, on 18 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Hogan, what's clear is that they altered the hairline and the top of the head to make it Lovelady's.

I just read through the HSCA anthropometric analysis, and they didn't say anything about lips. Not a word about lips.

(/quote]

Entirely irrelevant to anything I posted.

Par for the course.

http://educationforu...495#entry252640

Tom Scully Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:59 PM

.... Ralph, it saddens me to observe you posting the last names of your fellow forum members. What the hell is the matter with you? Where else are you permitted 24/7 podium with the potential viewership you are privileged to, here at JFK Debate?

One of the rules of posting here is that you engage other members in a civil and considerate manner. .....Ralph, my point is, we have a reason, if we choose to exercise it, to moderate you because you do not interact with other members in a civil and respectful manner. Stop replying to others using only their last names. Stop baiting other members in your replies.....

.......When have I ever called another poster a name, or even snidely referred to them by their last name or a childish nickname (Glennie, Jimbo, etc.)? When have I ever attacked any other poster personally? I try to practice what I preach. I'm not perfect, but I pride myself on posting in a civil manner at all times. .......

Perhaps I was not completely clear, in my last post. The crux of my post is that I have had it up to here, with this.:

(quote name='John Simkin' timestamp='1346306444' post='259035']

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

Your contributions have been very good as well. In fact, in my opinion, Michael and Robert are the best two posters on this forum.

(/quote]

As good as Michael and Robert are, and I do think that Robert is the best writer in this forum(however it takes Robert a long time to make a post, he is slow and deliberate)followed in second place by maybe Nathaniel), a forum requires variety. If the forum contained only Michael and Robert it would be a very dull forum indeed! We need to see what Robert is like when he has to respond quickly, we have not seen the "spontaneous" Robert. ......

(quote name='Don Jeffries' timestamp='1350908116' post='261873']

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. ......

(/quote]

Despite what I attempted to communicate in my last post, Don was soon back at it;

(quote] Don Jeffries Posted 23 October, 2012, 06:48 AM

Greg,

.....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.....(/quote]

Greg Parker and I are certainly of quite different temperament and in the way we express ourselves. Greg vehemently objected here,

http://educationforu...54 to an accusation mutually aimed at Greg and I.

I mulled over the accusation, deliberating for some time whether or not it could have or should have been delivered less provocatively. I did

not reply, although I could identify with what Greg's posted reaction, just as I could in this thread. Identifying with Greg's frustration and objections does not mean that I endorse the way Greg went about responding.

I took into account that John Simkin does not know my heart or my motive and reacts as most do to criticism perceived as negative. However, I threw in the towel when I read this, "Although I am not willing to remove these claims I am willing to add to these pages alternative points of view so the reader can make up their own mind..".

Mr. Hogan, I did not mention you in my post because what I am turned off by is what I described in my post. ....research findings are bumping up against a group of impressive unity and impenetrable inflexibility. There seems a priority here of reminding readers of the fine example you can be counted on to set. The chest pounding in your favor is all the more perplexing because you seem to do no constructive service.:

(quote)

Michael Hogan, on 07 October 2012 - 04:21 PM, said: John, I can't imagine the amount of effort, imagination and dedication required to found, expand and maintain Spartacus.

You have provided a valuable and free historical resource. Any undertaking like this would surely contain some errors and omissions,

but I think you have always taken positive steps to improve accuracy and completeness. .....(/quote]

My priority is the accuracy and reliability of relevant JFK research content. This reference is still up, more than a month after my post excerpted below it, and after I posted a suggestion that the Spartacus project needed the services of an editor, but before, .:"Although I am not willing to remove these claims

http://www.spartacus...k/JFKsmithF.htm

(10) Jonathan Wendland, Florence Pritchett (3rd March, 2005)

(quote]Tom Scully Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:10 AM

When I checked the I.P.'s used by members in the threads at the links below, sure enough, these three members posted from

the same I.P.'s, as follows, and in other instances.:

http://educationforu...358

Yarnell and Israel - (IP: 81.105.51.16)

http://educationforu...382

Wendland - (IP: 206.170.106.240)

...... (/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your last post. You quote yourself, and then me, from back in May of this year, echoing the same theme about maintaining civility on the forum. I don't know what it is that you've "had it up to here" with. I also don't know what "theme" of mine is "off putting." I simply urged Greg, as I've probably urged too many posters too many times, to make his arguments without juvenile name calling.

You also seem to have an animosity towards Michael Hogan that I don't understand. I respect you and usually agree with your views, but in this case I'm baffled.

As Lee Harvey Oswald once said, "I know nothing more than that..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....The late Doug Weldon was a fine researcher and by all accounts a good and honorable man. He measured his words and almost never spoke poorly of anyone.

In the thread referenced by Greg, this is what he had to say:

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.

Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.

I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.

Mr. Hogan, the fact is, I did not post your name, yet you show the temerity and disrespect to post about me in the way you did. My comments were directed to Don Jeffries because I agreed with Greg that Don's theme is off putting.

The fact is that Mr Scully responded directly to a post I made. If he wanted to direct his comments to Don Jeffries, he could have responded directly to Don's post:

http://educationforu...=75#entry261909

Why did Mr Scully make the assumption that Don was posting as a moderator and not as a member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don post #79,

You appear now to be engaged in a personal, rather petty feud with Michael Hogan.

A feud by definition takes two. Yet in this "petty" feud, you have taken sides.

Don post 90

And now you turn the name calling towards me. Simply stating that a point will be perceived better if there is no juvenile name calling or profanity involved is setting up a straw man? Well, at least you are calling me a sly demagogue, which I suppose is better than being your garden variety type. But a fraud? Do I post any differently than I urge everyone else to? Calling me Howdy Doody (which I didn't quite understand) is one thing, but a fraud? You need to come up with a different slur.

You are determined to keep arguing against your own straw-man. This is the sort of thing that has been going on for ages here.

You missed my point entirely. I was saying that no matter how brilliant your arguments, or anyone else's arguments are, their effectiveness can be diminished by the manner in which they're presented. You appear to want to play the role of a gruff, tough, tell-it-like-it-is renegade. That's fine, but expect people to be turned off by that, and to tune out your arguments.

That's hilarious. You described Jack White in similar terms ("Jack could too easily dismiss those who opposed him. He was often too quick to judge..") yet I don't recall you ever lecturing him about civility. Why is that?

Jack White to me, Nov 17, 2010 "Parker is visually impaired. He probably does not recognize his own mother." Is there anything lower than bringing someone's mother into it? Where were you then?

Maybe I'm just dense, but I see a clear connection between the alleged cowardice and hypocrisy of Michael Hogan, and the fact you coincidentally are having intense debates with him. That's human nature, I suppose- we don't usually expend such energy on the supposed faults of those who are agreeing with us. If your definition of a "coward" is someone who tires of debating someone when there will obviously be no consensus arrived at, then we all are probably cowards at one time or another. I also have to admit that I find the liberal usage of a sobriquet like "coward" to be only a few steps more mature than calling someone "chicken." But then again, perhaps I am just a coward, too.

Yes, it is within the context of this debate spanning a few years that he has shown his cowardice and hypocrisy. If you are trying to say that Mike disappeared from that 2010 thread simply because he grew tired of the debate - let me remind you of the timing of his disappearance again: he disappeared after proof was posted that his accusation against me - one he had repeated several times - was dead wrong.

I don't think we become aristocratic snobs merely by suggesting someone be polite. Common courtesy is an important element in any civilized society, even if it's usually just mindless rote. The great Ambrose Bierce defined politeness as the most acceptable form of hypocrisy. Do you object to saying "thank you" as well?

Again you attack your own straw man. When style over-rides content in importance, it has the potential to over-ride the truth, as well.

Edited by Greg Parker
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

×
×
  • Create New...