Jump to content
The Education Forum

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jim Hargrove said:

Quoting Sandy Larsen...

Jim DiEugenio and Jim Hargrove are right about DVP's website...[blah-blah.....]

Why are you repeating that crap, Jim H.? I already debunked it on Page 17 ( and Page 8 ) of this insane thread --- HERE.

 

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

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

David:  Take my words off your site!

You have debunked NOTHING!

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
 
Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

You have debunked NOTHING!

Good! Another lie told by Hargrove. (This is becoming a habit with Jim H.).

I proved Larsen was wrong about this in my last link I provided....

"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. .... 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!" -- S. Larsen

I MYSELF even posted the text of the regulation in question in a follow-up post after Sandy's.

I guess Sandy can't read. Nor evidently can Jim Hargrove.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

I would like to ask the mods why Von Pein is allowed to call me a xxxx when Jim Hargrove just proved that what I said was accurate?

(Hargrove was referring to what he wrote not Sandy)

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would like to ask the mods why Von Pein is allowed to call me a xxxx when Jim Hargrove just proved that what I said was accurate?

And how did he "prove" that, Jim?

 

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

Here is an example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html

 

The idea that he was quoting me completely here is nutty. But that is what I think he is saying.  But further,  go to the  link at the bottom which one would think takes to the EF dialogue, click it.

It does not take you there. It goes to a post by him.  And you have to click again to take you to the EF dialogue.

To use on of his cliches, pot calling kettle...

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is an example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html

The idea that he was quoting me completely here is nutty. But that is what I think he is saying.  But further,  go to the  link at the bottom which one would think takes to the EF dialogue, click it.

It does not take you there. It goes to a post by him.  And you have to click again to take you to the EF dialogue.

To use [one] of his cliches, pot calling kettle...

Jimmy is hilarious with this supposed "Gotcha" above. The webpage he cites is a discussion from early June of 2010, twenty days BEFORE DiEugenio ever joined The Education Forum for the first time, and two months before I re-joined. So my "source" link to an acj newsgroup post is entirely appropriate and accurate, because that link, in fact, IS the original "source" location for that June 2010 material. I originally posted it at the acj newsgroup. 

And if Jim would have just looked at the very first paragraph on that "Part 37" webpage, he would have seen this (which even includes a link to the EF post in question by Bill Kelly!)....

"At The Education Forum, William Kelly is apparently serving as one of
James DiEugenio's lapdogs/servants (since DiEugenio will never lower
himself to post on any Internet forums [as of early June 2010 anyway;
but I will amend that previous criticism, because DiEugenio did join The
Education Forum as an active participant on June 22, 2010]), with Kelly

posting this message from DiEugenio on June 2, 2010...." -- DVP; June 2010

 

Another part of my webpage that I guess Jim D. didn't bother to read (or comprehend) is the part where I said this....

"Allow me to highlight some of DiEugenio's latest blather from the above-linked article:..."

So I wasn't even attempting to tackle ALL of the silly things Jim might have written (and which were posted by Bill Kelly by proxy)....hence I wrote the word "some" above.

Try again, Jim. This last effort of yours was a definite bust.

 

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

Do not have to try again. What Davy does not say is that Kelly and others WERE posting for me at that time.

Here is another example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-38.html

Now with this one you can click through to DVP's post, and then finally to the EF and you will see that Kelly was posting for me. 

Now compare everything I wrote for Bill to how DVP edited it in his chapter.  Night and day.  But that is what DVP is about producing darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do not have to try again. What Davy does not say is that Kelly and others WERE posting for me at that time.

That's just exactly what I did say above. Can't you read at all? ....

"William Kelly is apparently serving as one of James DiEugenio's lapdogs/servants...with Kelly posting this message from DiEugenio on June 2, 2010...." -- DVP

 

Quote

Here is another example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-38.html

Now with this one you can click through to DVP's post, and then finally to the EF and you will see that Kelly was posting for me. 

Now compare everything I wrote for Bill to how DVP edited it in his chapter.  Night and day.  But that is what DVP is about producing darkness.

What in the heck are you talking about? I just checked that "Part 38" link, and I quoted EVERY single word you wrote in that first post of Kelly's. Every word. So nothing was "edited" out at all. I quoted your words verbatim on each specific point you made, and then I posted my rebuttal.

So what's this crap about "Night and day"? Or maybe you didn't notice that the quotes in-between the " >>>  <<< " symbols are YOUR quotes. Not mine.

0-for-2 now, Jim. Try again.

 

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

I think your position at this forum is becoming untenable David von Pein. It has been clearly put to you why this is happening and that we want our content removed from your poxy website.

Jim D is right you make it look you are on top of things yet the opposite is true as you have run away many many times with your tail between your legs and then there you go at you website claiming you have the upper hand, as if.

Stop being a clown as this just escalates further and further.

Edited by Bart Kamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

I think your position at this forum is becoming untenable David von Pein [sic].

Says the conspiracy fantasist who continues to pretend....

"The second floor lunch room encounter never happened."

And yet I'm being told by the author of the above quote that it's my position at this forum (not his) that is "untenable". Ya gotta love it, folks!

Irony-Alert-Logo.png

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

You fool, stop your whataboutisms.

And yes the abundance of evidence make it impossible for the 2flre to have ever happened, old news.

Meanwhile you try and wrestle your way out of this, poorly if I may add.

Delete my content from your website!

Edited by Bart Kamp
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...