MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

As am I, Chris.

Now, what about the question of who killed our president in Dallas in 1963, the man who encouraged [intelligent and preferably informed if not fact-based] public discourse?

It's not lost on me that you failed to engage in polite discourse related to my challenge to your subjective and ill informed comments -- you know, the gloating thing, the Hunts, my joint work copyright with Hank, details you now avoid?  I refer to that as "hit and run".  Most unattractive. 

RePost:

“I have two points for you to comprehend:

1) This thread was written regarding a very specific situation relating to equality and double standards here on the forum. I have made a case which you apparently can’t refute. Anything else will be off topic / irrelevant. 

2) Why would you assume that anyone would desire to interact with you? You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family. You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO. There is no upside for anyone else to interact with you. IMO people like you socially isolate themselves.”

——————————————————————

The only thing that you are doing is proving a drain on people’s time, at present. I value mine. There are those who crave the inane, unfortunately I am not one of them. You are socially isolating yourself, and proving my point. 

I did try to reach out with an olive branch a while back, at this juncture I am at peace with you staying scorned. 

[Leslie Sharp]

13 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

RePost:

 

“I have two points for you to comprehend:

1) This thread was written regarding a very specific situation relating to equality and double standards here on the forum. I have made a case which you apparently can’t refute. Anything else will be off topic / irrelevant. 

2) Why would you assume that anyone would desire to interact with you? You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family. You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO. There is no upside for anyone else to interact with you. IMO people like you socially isolate themselves.”

——————————————————————

The only thing that you are doing is proving a drain on people’s time, at present. I value mine. There are those who crave the inane, unfortunately I am not one of them. You are socially isolating yourself, and proving my point. 

I did try to reach out with an olive branch a while back, at this juncture I am at peace with you staying scorned. 

And I have rebutted, with fact, your purely subjective observations.

1. I didn't, nor do I have reason to, gloat. 
2. I was fully transparent. 
    
3. We expose H. L. Hunt as a likely contributor to the violent removal of our democratically elected president.
4. I co-authored Coup in Dallas with Hank. 

Do you think your thinly veiled condescending misogny is lost on me? 'You should be concerned that you won't be elected Ms Commenter of March 2023 if you challenge me.'  

Do you use this tactic on men on the forum or reserve it for women?

Your "olive branch" arrived on that sticky beak, Chris.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

And I have rebutted, with fact, your purely subjective observations.

1. I didn't, nor do I have reason to, gloat. 
2. I was fully transparent. 
    
3. We expose H. L. Hunt as a likely contributor to the violent removal of our democratically elected president.
4. I co-authored Coup in Dallas with Hank. 

Do you think your thinly veiled condescending misogny is lost on me? 'You should be concerned that you won't be elected Ms Commenter of March 2023 if you challenge me.'  

Do you use this tactic on men on the forum or reserve it for women?

Your "olive branch" arrived on that sticky beak, Chris.

@Leslie Sharp 

By my calculations you mentioning misogyny (I think thats what you meant), you’re probably only two steps away from calling everyone Hitler who doesn’t agree with you. it’s the unsophisticated trope of the irrational. 

I genuinely don’t have any solutions for what is going on in your psyche at present, aside from the thoughts previously offered. I only hope that you heal. 

Have a lovely evening. 
 

  

[Leslie Sharp]

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Leslie Sharp 

By my calculations you mentioning misogyny (I think thats what you meant), you’re probably only two steps away from calling everyone Hitler who doesn’t agree with you. it’s the unsophisticated trope of the irrational. 

I genuinely don’t have any solutions for what is going on in your psyche at present, aside from the thoughts previously offered. I only hope that you heal. 

Have a lovely evening. 
 

  

A sea lion, and condescending to boot.

[Leslie Sharp]

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

A sea lion, and condescending to boot.

At the risk of taking your bait—I've hesitated to force you to "look" at this because it only serves to advance Matthew Koch's provocations, but in light of your defense of his obnoxious and disruptive behavior, your own misogynistic responses – however veiled - in lieu of a fact-based discussion with a woman, your arrogant presumption that you know the slightest thing about my psyche or the psyche of others on this forum — I'm going to metaphorically shove this in your face in a similar vein of Matthew’s behavior.

 

Mathew writes, 

I will say that his [Alex Wilson] line about Leslie's date book being a turd and can't be polished into gold was funny, 

 

 

@Chris Barnard The hilarious thing is how this reflects Koch’s “journalism skills.” Alex Wilson did not use the phrase,nor does Koch designate it as a paraphrase but leaves the reader believing it is a direct quote from Wilson.  How very professional. Only a potty brain would dare misquote a somewhat serious researcher. 

 

The offensive thing about Koch’s insipid remark — and venturing into psychobabble territory because it seems to be the discipline with which you seem to be most au fait  — is his word picture.  You know as well as I do that word pictures/images are powerful, and instead of considering the efficacy of the Lafitte datebook, some impressionable minds will only see excrement. Consider carefully Trump's use of word pictures? Ironic.

 

To be clear,  as was his prerogative, Wilson criticized my posts because, apparently, they are somewhat similar to Tom Scully’s approach.  He meant to insult us professionally, but he didn’t tar us in the fashion Koch chose to.  Crude and crass is just that, yet you seem entirely comfortable with "a turd." (you might check out the recent Jesse Waters episode on Fox News.  I wondered who inspired whom.)

 

If you view my taking issue, professionally, with Mathew Koch’s insults of our book, and interpret it as being “woke”, then I’m wide awake. Note to file – ask my cousin-the-lawyer if we should send Koch a demand letter to retract. 

 

For the record, if Mr. Wilson is reading, I stand on the shoulders of Tom Scully and our colleague Linda Minor whose selfless contributions to the body of research into the assassination in Dallas are incalculable.  Mocking corporate, social, collegial, professional, governmental genealogy is Wilson’s choice, but he does so at his own expense.   In time, we will identify an affordable 3-D ap and leave Wilson and others in the shade.  It is my hope that our first project will be to convert Robert Montenegro’s refined and remarkably inspired assassination database to 3-D.

 

It's possible, Chris, that you will fail to appreciate or utilize Monty’s database and our related works in progress. They are fact-based and void of psychoanalysis. You do know that practicing your trade on a public forum is verboten? 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Matt Allison]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:15 AM, Chris Barnard said:

As if your comments couldn’t get more absurd, irrelevant or erroneous. 

That's ad-hom and a non-answer.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Matt Allison

[John Cotter]

44 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

That's ad-hom and a non-answer.

So there's no proof "Matthew Koch" is a real person?

How is it ad hominem?

[Benjamin Cole]

Keep in mind, RFK said we must not only tolerate, but encourage dissent. 

Appropriate in all forums. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 3/21/2023 at 1:31 AM, Ron Bulman said:

The point about Lovett is important.   He tried to do the right thing in the 50's with the CIA report, then chose JFK's cabinet.  

My favorite Turkey barber song, one of those always two step ones.

 

Moving forward.

 

[W. Niederhut]

On 3/21/2023 at 1:35 PM, Guest said:

I would hesitate to claim being "like Matthew" in any respect, but I did indeed vote for The Donald twice (as I did for Obama, twice, which I mention lest anyone think I'm as politically one-dimensional as many folks here seem to be). I am entirely able to distinguish between "the policies" and "the man." In terms of the policies, I remain a firm Trump supporter.

I thought the 56 Years thread was not merely an embarrassment to the forum but to the human race. "Anti-Trump sewer" is entirely accurate but far too gentle. It was worthwhile only because it illustrated, in spades, an issue that I raised in one of my early posts here several years ago - i.e., the curiously Leftist orientation of the JFKA conspiracy community. At the time, I just noted this in passing. As I recall, my point was that this might explain why much of the conspiracy community leans toward dark, elaborate conspiracies whereby JFK's death supposedly explains much of the subsequent history of the U.S. Now, it seems, the "Leftist orientation" of the forum has exploded into full-fledged "Leftist intolerance" of contrasting views. 

Dear Guest,

     Thanks for posting your decidedly erroneous opinion about the (original) 56 Years thread in the context of your history of voting twice for Donald Trump and your "remaining a firm Trump supporter."  

     That speaks volumes about your perceptions and judgments about American history and politics.

     I'm always wary of people who refer to Democrats as "leftists"-- although, to your credit, at least you didn't refer to us in hyperbolic Trump-ian terms as, "the radical left."  🙄

     Most Fox News-watching Trumpsters in America today consider anything left of right field to be "leftist."  Yet, many Democrats are centrists or slightly left of center.

     I was discussing this subject a few years ago on a different forum, and I took a few minutes to rate my political views on the Political Compass test.  I was surprised, as an alleged "radical leftist," to find that I scored very close the exact center on the Political Compass (ever so slightly left of center.)

     Where are you on the Political Compass?

The Political Compass

      As for the 56 Years thread, I consider myself to be a reasonably good judge of academic quality.  It was an excellent thread for a long time, before it got swamped with Fox/MAGA spam in 2022.

     

Edited March 24, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Matt Allison]

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 I'm always wary of people who refer to Democrats as "leftists"

"Leftist" is a pejorative traditionally used to describe members of the Communist Party back when Americans were tricked into thinking Communism could actually be a thing in the United States.

These days anyone that refers to Dems as "leftists" usually turns out to be a RWNJ.

[Leslie Sharp]

On 3/22/2023 at 6:21 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Keep in mind, RFK said we must not only tolerate, but encourage dissent. 

Appropriate in all forums. 

 

Did RFK mean dissent for dissent's sake?

Or was he galvanizing the oppressed and assuring them he would fight for their equal right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness in America.  

I hardly think Trump supports are "oppressed" unless being drug into the 21st Century race, gender, religious enlightenment is "oppressive".  

What exactly are you dissenting, Ben? The "deep state"? You will have to stare down Trump's history to assure me that you're serious about that endeavor. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Did RFK mean dissent for dissent's sake?

Or was he galvanizing the oppressed and assuring them he would fight for their equal right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness in America.  

I hardly think Trump supports are "oppressed" unless being drug into the 21st Century race, gender, religious enlightenment is "oppressive".  

What exactly are you dissenting, Ben? The "deep state"? You will have to stare down Trump's history to assure me that you're serious about that endeavor. 

Likely, I cannot convince you of my bona fides. I accept you do not regard me as serious. 

I merely stated that all of us should not only tolerate dissent from our views, but encourage dissent. Encourage participation in EF-JFK---as I do you. 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Likely, I cannot convince you of my bona fides. I accept you do not regard me as serious. 

I merely stated that all of us should not only tolerate dissent from our views, but encourage dissent. Encourage participation in EF-JFK---as I do you. 

 

 

On the contrary, I take you very seriously, otherwise I wouldn't be concerned by your comments.  Dissent over facts isn't "dissent", it's attempted distortion. the action of giving a misleading account or impression.

Trump was not a victim of regime change.  There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis.  There are tens and tens and tens of thousands of pages that document his attempted to overthrow a democratic election ... an attempted Coup.  

[Benjamin Cole]

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

On the contrary, I take you very seriously, otherwise I wouldn't be concerned by your comments.  Dissent over facts isn't "dissent", it's attempted distortion. the action of giving a misleading account or impression.

Trump was not a victim of regime change.  There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis.  There are tens and tens and tens of thousands of pages that document his attempted to overthrow a democratic election ... an attempted Coup.  

We see the facts differently. 

In a nutshell, the debunked Russiagate Hoax, the debunked Russian-social-media farrago, then the Mueller Report, leading to the Donk impeachment of Trump---clearly there was an attempt to remove Trump for office, and not through the ballot box. 

Did Trump have a plan for Pence to somehow nullify results from certain states? It seems so (rather weak and half-baked, as Trump had zero backing in institutional DC, or from the intel-state). 

One reality does not foreclose the other reality. There can be Deep State regime-change ops against Trump, and also a Trump plan to have Pence nullify results from certain states.

We are worlds apart in views, and what we think are facts. 

But I welcome your participation in EF-JFK, and I do not disparage your views of facts. 

Your views are just not my views. 

That is why it is called a forum. 

As a courtesy statement, I am not ignoring any comments, but I myself will forego further comments on this thread.