Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

At that time, DVP had to make a pledge to Simkin that he would not start insulting people as he had before on both sites e.g. recommending books on curing paranoria etc.

 

David Von Pein said:

This is nothing but a falsehood. I never made any kind of "pledge" to John Simkin or anyone else connected with this forum at that time (2010). DiEugenio, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Just so the record is clear and to verify that I was correct in my posted quote above....

Linked below are the only two e-mail exchanges that I had with former Education Forum owner John Simkin prior to Simkin allowing me to re-join this forum in August 2010. They are very short, to-the-point exchanges, and there's no "pledge" request being brought forth by Mr. Simkin in either of the two e-mails he sent me at that time.

Ergo, the notion that I was forced to "pledge" to be a really good boy before being reinstated here is a totally made-up and fallacious notion, just as I said a few hours ago. I was able to retrieve these old e-mails from my AOL Filing Cabinet. Maybe after reading them, Jim will finally decide to stop spreading the falsehood about "the pledge". (Not that it really matters at all; but I do find it annoying when Jim D. keeps harping on something that I know to be totally inaccurate.) ....

John Simkin E-Mails Sent To DVP In August 2010

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But you, Jim [DiEugenio], were in the very same boat as me (with respect to getting reinstated after getting booted from this forum).....because you too were kicked off this forum by Mr. Simkin a few years ago (approx. 2013 or 2014 as I recall). So I wouldn't throw too many stones if I were you.

Holiday Bonus (Just For Fun) :) (A Bonus E-Mail Find....)

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

Email-Aug-2013.png

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

The thread referred to above.....

 

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

Merry Christmas to one and all from the hill country of Central Kentucky.  The Russians are coming.  They going to be colluding in the whiskey business only the sassy Russians want to make vodka instead.  Anyway.....

I was going to do something more about Marie Muchmore and the Babushka Lady / Lady in Blue but couldn't resist this on the "Random Man" and "Jack Ruby" identifications of Phil Willis.

Phil-will-gif.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone and his mother knows about what happened with Scully and me and how the forum was then closed down.

As per spies, they were not on forums.  They were on conversations  his group would have over for example, who was going to debate on Anton Batey's show.

C'mon Davey.  Are you going to say that did not happen either?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Everyone and his mother knows about what happened with Scully and me and how the forum was then closed down.

I'll bet you're dead wrong about that too. I'd guess that more than half of the current EF members have no idea about the things that happened here in 2013. Why would they? Most of them weren't even members then.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

What is actually troubling Mr. DiEugenio is that here, in this veritable conspiracy kindergarten, I have introduced peer-reviewed literature to the effect that persons who are prone to see conspiracies all around them tend to have a certain psychological profile. 


That is Lance's excuse for characterizing us CTers as crazy, or whatever it is his insulting adjectives are. The obvious problem with his prone-to-see-conspiracies argument is that he hasn't shown us to be "prone to see conspiracies all around us," as he puts it. So his argument holds no water.

 

17 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I have also emphasized Lance's Axiom that academic and professional credentials are no guarantee that you are not dealing with a complete loon.  No big deal - except, perhaps, to someone for whom this all hits a little too close to home:  "Hey, that's me, and my acolytes are going to think he's talking about me!"


"Lance's Axiom" suffers from the same problem.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That is Lance's excuse for characterizing us CTers as crazy, or whatever it is his insulting adjectives are. The obvious problem with his prone-to-see-conspiracies argument is that he hasn't shown us to be "prone to see conspiracies all around us," as he puts it. So his argument holds no water.

Let's be clear, for the umpteenth time:  Lance has not called Conspiracy Theorists "crazy" or suggested that they are.  Lance has cited peer-reviewed literature, as well as his own considerable experience, to the effect that those who tend to see conspiracies where others do not share a well-documented psychological profile.  Those who are at the extreme of this profile are logically prone to buy into extreme (fringe) conspiracy theories.  This doesn't mean that everyone within a conspiracy community shares this profile or that all conspiracy theories are bogus.  It is simply something for readers to keep in mind when attempting to navigate a community where conspiracy is a virtual religion, some of the views are exceedingly extreme, and anyone who raises doubts is immediately subjected to sophomoric ad hominem attacks.

The virulence of the reactions to these simple truths serves only to underscore my modest point.  Methinks thou doth protest too much - and methinks I knoweth why.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"Lance's Axiom" suffers from the same problem.

Well, no.  I am not suggesting that everyone with impeccable academic and professional credentials - hey, that's me! - is a complete loon in some dark corner of his life.  I am suggesting, and have demonstrated with examples, that this is sometimes the case.  In what I call "weirdness" communities, it is quite often the case.  No one should assume that it is not the case - whether we are talking about me, you or anyone else.  I am simply saying "Do not make the assumption, based on academic or professional credentials, superficial reasonableness, the holding of a responsible position, or other such factors, that in regard to this particular subject matter the speaker is not a complete whacked-out loon."  I learned some hard lessons before I adopted Lance's Axiom and have been spared untold grief since I did.

Except in my own mind, I have not applied Lance's Axiom to anyone here.  I leave it to readers to form their own judgments.  By their fruits you shall know them.  (Yes, I have sometimes used terminology such as "conspiracy loons" in a broader sense, but I have meant it as no more than a counterpart to "Lone Nutters" and am attempting to refrain since I understand that "conspiracy theorists" prefer to be addressed as such.)

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff Varnell has it right.

"In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK.

These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case.

Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them.  They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over.

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended."

The discussion to this point demonstrates the validity of his statements.  You cannot discuss much of anything with Von Pein, Payette, Baker, Hammond, etc. with any hope they will respond in a positive manner to your ideas.

I generally avoid answering any of their comments.

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Let's be clear, for the umpteenth time:  Lance has not called Conspiracy Theorists "crazy" or suggested that they are.  Lance has cited peer-reviewed literature, as well as his own considerable experience, to the effect that those who tend to see conspiracies where others do not share a well-documented psychological profile.  Those who are at the extreme of this profile are logically prone to buy into extreme (fringe) conspiracy theories.  This doesn't mean that everyone within a conspiracy community shares this profile or that all conspiracy theories are bogus.  It is simply something for readers to keep in mind when attempting to navigate a community where conspiracy is a virtual religion, some of the views are exceedingly extreme, and anyone who raises doubts is immediately subjected to sophomoric ad hominem attacks.

The virulence of the reactions to these simple truths serves only to underscore my modest point.  Methinks thou doth protest too much - and methinks I knoweth why.

I actually agree with Lance. But as he says, not all conspiracy theories are bogus. The one we debate here is real. I prefer to call it conspiracy fact. That there is disagreement among us as to who done it doesn’t prove we are just a spectrum of mistaken theorists. Lance likes to compare JFK conspiracy ‘theories’ to UFO. There is of course a wide gulf between, and more to the point, riddling the very real unexplained UFO phenomena with crazy unprovable theories is the best way to discredit the whole field. The people who peddle this stuff - like fake moon landings or fake school shootings - are either just plain crazy, serving their own need for fame and fortune, or they are disinformation operatives. Some Lone Nutters may fall into the latter category, but certainly not all. Same for the JFK conspiracists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

(Yes, I have sometimes used terminology such as "conspiracy loons" in a broader sense, but I have meant it as no more than a counterpart to "Lone Nutters" and am attempting to refrain since I understand that "conspiracy theorists" prefer to be addressed as such.)


"Lone nutter" is not a derogatory term, as "lone nut" refers to LHO and not the person who believes he was a lone nut. In contrast, "conspiracy loon" is a derogatory term for a CTer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Cliff Varnell has it right.

"In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK.

These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case.

Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them.  They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over.

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended."

The discussion to this point demonstrates the validity of his statements.  You cannot discuss much of anything with Von Pein, Payette, Baker, Hammond, etc. with any hope they will respond in a positive manner to your ideas.

I generally avoid answering any of there comments.

You both got it right.   I mentioned that I came onto this site to only ask for some pictures, and then I would be on my way.   But I'm shocked to see after being gone for 15 years, that the same Warren Commission re-hash is going on, the only difference being a much more polite and cordial LNer.

So what's their angle?  In my view, they're trying to keep the discussion focusing on this re-hash of the WC report, so nothing will ever be resolved, AND to keep the discussion from going further down the rabbit hole to determine who was behind the coup d'etat, and why.  Even some of you CTer's could use some research in this area.  It's fascinating, and you can use the info you gain from JFK, and apply it to current events like the Kavanaugh hearings, Brexit, Russia, or whatever you want.  I warn you though, the nutwork has set up a 'brick wall' in front of every avenue of truth.

Cliff and John are correct, ignore them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

You both got it right.   I mentioned that I came onto this site to only ask for some pictures, and then I would be on my way.   But I'm shocked to see after being gone for 15 years, that the same Warren Commission re-hash is going on, the only difference being a much more polite and cordial LNer.

So what's their angle?  In my view, they're trying to keep the discussion focusing on this re-hash of the WC report, so nothing will ever be resolved, AND to keep the discussion from going further down the rabbit hole to determine who was behind the coup d'etat, and why.  Even some of you CTer's could use some research in this area.  It's fascinating, and you can use the info you gain from JFK, and apply it to current events like the Kavanaugh hearings, Brexit, Russia, or whatever you want.  I warn you though, the nutwork has set up a 'brick wall' in front of every avenue of truth.

Cliff and John are correct, ignore them.

 

 

Well said. 

Link to post
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...