WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

[Guest]

Enough with this BS David.

Remove my content.

 

[David Von Pein]

52 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Enough with this BS David.

Remove my content.

Why on Earth do you have a problem with it, Bart?

And....

Why the sudden about-face from this stance you took just two days ago?....

"No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂 " -- Bart Kamp; 8/23/19

It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch.

(But maybe I hit the nail on the head when I used the word "acting" just now. Ya think?)

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

13 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Enough with this BS David.

Remove my content.

 

I mean, free speech is a more important code of ethics than taking down DVP.

[Michael Clark]

On 8/25/2019 at 5:29 PM, David Von Pein said:

Why on Earth do you have a problem with it, Bart?

And....

Why the sudden about-face from this stance you took just two days ago?....

"No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂 " -- Bart Kamp; 8/23/19

It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch.

(But maybe I hit the nail on the head when I used the word "acting" just now. Ya think?)

 

I wouldn’t do what you do David.

if I knew that people didn’t like it, I would take it down.

It wouldn’t matter if I was legally entitled to do it.

If I Was asked to a members posts down, I would.

Its an absolutely pernicious act to do what you do when you know members don’t like it and you continue to do it.

Lastly, it’s an abuse to the EF membership to continue doing it.

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Enough with this BS David.

Remove my content.

 

David, remove my content from your site.

 

[David Von Pein]

It's an absolutely pernicious act to do what you do when you know members don’t like it and you continue to do it.

CTers don't like anything an LNer does. So what's new?

If I was a "CTer", this thread would not exist....and everybody here knows it.

 

7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Lastly, it’s an abuse to the EF membership to continue doing it.

How do you figure that?

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

I mean, free speech is a more important code of ethics than taking down DVP.

Absolutely right. I think what is happening here is an effort to silence David and that is not a good thing even for his opponents. Some of the CTs want this to be a "sandbox" where they can float even the most preposterous theories (H&L is still being discussed almost daily) without being challenged. While that may be an enjoyable exercise for them, they presumably want those theories to be taken seriously by other researchers and eventually the public at large. So, people like David and Lance perform a service to everyone by refuting the more ridiculous theories and debating the enduring ones. Those serious about finding the "truth" should welcome such scrutiny.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch.

The same could be said of Jim D's sudden concern about his words at your site. I believe that content has been there for some time as well. The whole thing smacks of an attempted and senseless takedown. Stick to your guns David unless you find you are legally in the wrong which I highly doubt.

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The same could be said of Jim D's sudden concern about his words at your site.

Good point.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Enough with this BS David.

Remove my content.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David, remove my content from your site.

 

Ditto here, David.  Remove my words from your website!  

[James DiEugenio]

There is a difference between posting material on the web and having it reposted elsewhere and what DVP does.

What he does is to change the form of what was posted, and most of the time he changes it, it is for one purpose. 

To alter the argument in his favor, thereby demeaning the original poster and aggrandizing himself.

And the idea he keeps repeating above is really weak.  "I want to preserve my posts".  🤧  Give us all a break Davy.  The real intent in that series about me is for him to convince the casual reader that he is right and I am wrong.  It's the same cherry picking technique that Jean Davison, McAdams and Bugliosi do.  The message is: I support the WC, these guys do not, but look how silly they are. 

He achieves that effect by altering the original form of the poster. 

 

PS  Note how fast he turned down my deal.  And his reasons completely affirm my point about it. The incredible imbalance which makes any comparison (which he tried to make) silly. 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Jim Hargrove]

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He achieves that effect by altering the original form of the poster. 

Right you are, Jim.  What Mr. Von Pein posts are, as I have said many times, IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS!  

DAVID:  Again, take my words off your site!

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What Mr. Von Pein posts are, as I have said many times, IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS!  

That is an absolute lie. There is nothing "imaginary" about any of the discussions archived at my website.

How long will Hargrove will be allowed to tell this blatant lie here? This makes at least three times he's told this outright lie now.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What he [DVP] does is to change the form of what was posted...

Oh good! Another outright lie being told by a CTer tonight.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Jim Hargrove]

Quoting Sandy Larsen...

Jim DiEugenio and Jim Hargrove are right about DVP's website giving him the last word. I have a perfect example.

Several posts ago Scott Kaiser tried to prove to DVP that postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. Unfortunately he quoted regulations for DISBURSEMENT postal money orders, which are a special type of PMO and not the type used by Hidell.

In Post 85 on this page, DVP replied by pasting from his website a sequence of posts made by DVP's buddies on another forum, where they point out that I had made the same mistake. Oddly, one of the posts among them was mine from THIS forum, not theirs.

So David showed Scott that he was wrong.

Not surprisingly, David didn't reveal to Scott the FRB circulars that cover regular money orders and prove that they too require bank stamps.

Anyway, I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening.

The date span of that page on DVP's site covers the whole PMO debate, up through yesterday. So it should have posts regarding my proof. But no, there is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One!

In addition, I stumbled across an odd exchange between me and David on his site. David had this theory that banks didn't stamp individual items, but instead stamped the deposit slip (called a "cash letter") just once for all items. I proved him wrong by showing an actual check that Oswald had deposited. Here is what he has on his site:

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

It is easy to prove today -- right now -- that a bank stamp on a cash letter (bulk deposit slip) wasn't the way things were done in the 1960s.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that cash items were NOT stamped individually, because it was done on the cash letter. If that were the case, then how would you explain check #7419 on this page?

On the reverse side of the check you can see the FRB Chicago stamp (rectangular), so you know the check was processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. And you can see two bank stamps for Fort Worth National Bank (one is a hexagon and the other a rectangle with a decorative border). Since this is a national bank, it was the one that submitted the check to FRB Chicago.

Why are those bank stamps there, David?? When one stamp on the cash letter would have sufficed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in that example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks.

What? No rebuttal from me?

Well, no. Not on DVP's site. But if you go to the source -- this forum -- there IS a rebuttal. Here it is:

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

 

But the part of the regulation you quoted, regarding bulk deposits and cash letters, applies to all cash items, not just PMOs. And cash items include checks, money orders and other such instruments.

 

So if the FRBs allowed bank stamps to be on the cash letter instead of individual items, that would apply to checks, PMOs, and the rest.

 

What I showed is that what you described wasn't the case for checks. And so it wouldn't have been be the case for PMOs either.

After a few more exchanges DVP lost the mini-debate. But his website leads one to conclude otherwise. (If anybody wants to see for themselves, start at Post 25 on this page. Skip the long post to Lance Payette.)

Edited February 24, 2016 by Sandy Larsen