Oliver Stone: "Putin is a great leader for his country."

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

I know you're not a fan of Cheeto Benito, but we need him back! 

 

Trump is Trump, but he is probably more inclined to negotiate an armistice than Biden. 

Which is an interesting thought. 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I see that Sir Alex has posted another screed...

John,

     I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.

     I sort of enjoy reading Alex Wilson's Joycean stream-of-consciousness commentaries about the Education Forum.

     However, for a guy with a sense of humor, Alex didn't appreciate the humor of whiskey when I asked the other day if you had been drinking too much poteen... 🤥

    This Irish folk song about poteen, Humors of Whiskey, is a literary masterpiece, and it's also the second most difficult Irish song I ever tried to sing, (after Rocky Road to Dublin.)  I just posted the lyrics on my Guillermo Ambrose page.

    I don't sing this as well as some of your countrymen, but I do like my guitar + banjo arrangement/accompaniment better than Andy M. Stewart's version, and some other versions I've heard. 

     It's 6/8--like singing to an Irish jig.

    (I should have had a couple of pints before singing this.)

    The original a cappella recording by Tom Lenihan (from the 1960s) is the only version of the song I had ever heard before recording my arrangement here about 20 years ago.

     What does this have to do with JFK?  It's Irish.

 

Humors of Whiskey

https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14596618

Edited May 12, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

From the turbulent life of Greg Parker on the no publicity forum.

 

Chris Bernard @ the ed forum wrote:

 

am not sure if this correct but, isn’t Greg Parkers forum? I suspect he was more offended by the insignificance of ROKC being pointed out. As he is under the illusion that his septic space is the Hiram Key of the whole JFK assassination. The fact is that he is responsible for the culture. If he wants it to be a space taken seriously, then he probably needs to bin the “Debunked” section (or offending threads) and encourage more sensible posting. Of course, if he wants it to be a heap of rambling verses of ad hominem with limited traffic, then he should carry on as he is. Imagine a congressman/woman who is thinking about supporting the release of remaining documents, and he/she happens to come across that toxic space. It’s going to confirm most stereotypes about CT’s. Its not a recruitment tool, its repellant. Each to their own. 

“I am offended by lies and XXXXX, propagandists, grifters, wreckers and stooges. 
 
I am under no illusions. Though I admit I most certainly was when I first stumbled into this morass.  Not only was the internet new to me, so was the concept of so many acting in bad faith.  I found that a very hard pill to swallow because it is virtually an alien concept to the world I grew up in.

But I am a quick learner.

You're offended by what is done here? Don't come here. 

You guys engage in political theater than mirrors the present day buffoonery of US and UK political houses and discourses, whle tiptoeing around certain words and phrases that offend the mods far more than does the xxxxed-up politics being espoused. 

Serious polititians hate that dooky. Given the chance to speak openly and honestly, given the chance to laugh at themselves and the world around them, given the chance to take in the ramifications of things like Oswald's provable alibi, they would would love it here. 

If there were no adverse consequences to themselves or their career, that is. 

And fwiw, you keep mentioning "limited traffic" here, yet at certain times of day, we have more on here reading than the Ed Forum. But I don't give a rat's arse about the traffic.  Are you serious? What makes 80 readers at any given time, better than 50, FFS?  What I do care about is the quality of the output. Unlike the ed forum when it runs out of money amd marks, this forum will remain for all to see as long as the host exists. 

And at this stage, I am planning on the forum no longer needing to be anything more than an archive when all the work done offline is released. Because if that does not get the populace and the media motivated to force action, nothing ever will. I had making the forum redundant in mind from the start. Unlike all the others who want the wheels spinning into eternity.

So... good luck with Carlson! It has classc satire fodder written all over it.”

————————————————————-

It would seem to me the little house of diatribes is quite a sensitive place when a little truth is called out.

Just a quick check to corroborate your numbers vs here at the time of my posting. 
 

Education Forum 44

ROKC 16 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right Greg? 
 

Apparently you don’t care about the traffic; then in the next breath you are quoting numbers. That’s called a contradiction, Greg. 
 

You’re happy to support ‘ad hominem’, and have your forum showcase the etchings of something akin to Ted Kaczynski on methamphetamine, but, a little criticism your way and you’re up in arms about it. You obviously don’t see what a poor advert it is.  🙂  

PS I don’t think you have the first clue what gets the “populace and media motivated.” I would be the first to celebrate it if you do produce your magnum opus and achieve more than some of the finest researchers here. The clock is ticking. 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Chris Barnard
Typo

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, John Cotter said:

As for Sir Alex’s professed superior knowledge of all things historical, he should bear in mind Socrates’ words: the wisest man is he who knows that he knows nothing.

 

Sergeant Schultz... the wisest man. 

 

[John Cotter]

I have no intention of going through Greg Parker’s reply to my last post line by line, because more than enough time has already been spent on this matter, which arose as a result of persistent ad hominem attacks on members of this forum by Alex Wilson and other ROKC members.

“Ad hominem” is the key term here. The attacks in question were by definition personal, derogatory and illogical and no amount of self-serving obfuscation and excuses should be allowed deflect from that.

However, I need to respond to the following passage specifically in Greg Parker’s reply:

Quote:

So no xxxx you., John. We don't "need" external enemies. That is just a byproduct of the research. I expect better than this made up garbage from you. 

But that aside, I am genuinely glad to see that you have overcome your trevails. I assume you have anyway, given you are using your true name. 

Your secrets remain safe. I keep my word.

End quote.

The contradiction between the opening “felicitation” and what follows speaks for itself. What follows though is quite insidious.

Contrary to what Greg proclaims, my “secrets” do not remain safe, by dint of his mentioning them. For all that any reader of that passage knows, the secrets alluded to could be some heinous crimes committed by me.

I therefore have no choice but to disclose that what’s being alluded to is my having to engage in expensive and protracted legal action in the Irish High Court as a result of my being seriously wronged and my being eventually vindicated by a settlement in my favour.

Since the settlement involved my signing a non-disclosure agreement, I cannot describe my “trevails” (sic) in any more detail.

[John Cotter]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.

     I sort of enjoy reading Alex Wilson's Joycean stream-of-consciousness commentaries about the Education Forum.

     However, for a guy with a sense of humor, Alex didn't appreciate the humor of whiskey when I asked the other day if you had been drinking too much poteen... 🤥

    This Irish folk song about poteen, Humors of Whiskey, is a literary masterpiece, and it's also the second most difficult Irish song I ever tried to sing, (after Rocky Road to Dublin.)  I just posted the lyrics on my Guillermo Ambrose page.

    I don't sing this as well as some of your countrymen, but I do like my guitar + banjo arrangement/accompaniment better than Andy M. Stewart's version, and some other versions I've heard. 

     It's 6/8--like singing to an Irish jig.

    (I should have had a couple of pints before singing this.)

    The original a cappella recording by Tom Lenihan (from the 1960s) is the only version of the song I had ever heard before recording my arrangement here about 20 years ago.

     What does this have to do with JFK?  It's Irish.

 

Humors of Whiskey

https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14596618

William,

In fairness to him, Alex Wilson is a talented writer. It’s just that you can’t be denigrating people left, right and centre and expect there to be no consequences.

It’s a sad situation. I hope we can move on from this spat and that the ROKC and Ed forums can co-exist in a more harmonious fashion looking ahead.

Actually, I didn’t take umbrage at your poteen “slagging”.* As I tried to explain at the time, I was focusing on its illogicality rather its derogatory import. I think Alex was trying to drive a wedge there.

Yeah, that whiskey song is a hard one to pull off and you made a fine job of it. You might enjoy Christy Moore’s “Delirium Tremens” song, if for no other reason than it contains a reference to JFK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl1NQi_Vit0

*Hiberno-English for playful teasing – “ribbing” would probably be the closest standard English word to it.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, John Cotter said:

It’s a sad situation. I hope we can move on from this spat and that the ROKC and Ed forums can co-exist in a more harmonious fashion looking ahead.

I think we’ve made our points and that has been noted. The animus and conflict has been generated solely from one side. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been fostered and nurtured by Greg Parker on his forum. Alex Wilson’s dark side is laid bare for all to see. They can say it’s humour but, anyone with an ounce of understanding of psychology will know the malevolent motivations for someone to perpetually ridicule, defame, demonise, put down, bully and mischaracterise others. The answers are in the self. There are insecurities and unresolved issues there, which may not be conscious. You can disagree with the views of others without the above. 
 

I’ve just read Greg’s latest distortion, which is linguistically a rule breaker on this forum and a sign of him becoming more ragged. All I really have to say to that is; he is in total denial and delusion about ‘ad hominem’. If he thinks Alex mischaracterising some of the posters here as anti-semitic or readers or subscribers to Mein Campf or worse is not a personal attack, he is out of his mind. They haven’t done a thing to deserve it. It’s way over the line. Just so we are clear, this has zero to do with any characterisations of myself and I make no claims that I have a halo over my own head. 

 

Alex, I think, recognises that he has been way over the line here, even if Greg doesn’t. He knows its beyond banter (playful humour). He seems to like a cliché; so have one more. “Never a truer word said in jest.”

 

I’ll say this; the criticism that Greg/Alex have directed at this forum, for the off topic postings, may well have some merit on a case by case basis. i also think that they don’t understand the world we are living in. But, their Debunked section on ROKC is the worst possible advert for JFKA research. It’s claimed that they both care deeply about the case and seeing justice. My advice is; be introspective and clean your acts up. 
 

As for your divulging of personal circumstances; this really is an example of Greg’s character. I have zero curiosity about your personal business, John, but, it was an obvious veiled threat from Greg, and a reflection of his poor character. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Chris Barnard
Typos

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think we’ve made our points and that has been noted that. The animus and conflict has been generated solely from one side. It was completely unnecessary. Its been fostered and nurtured by Greg Parker on his forum. Alex Wilson’s dark side is laid bare for all to see. They can say its humour but, anyone with an ounce of understanding of psychology will know the malevolent motivations for someone to perpetually ridicule, defame, demonise, put down, bully and mischaracterise others. The answers are in the self. There is insecurities and unresolved issues there, which not he conscious. You can disagree with the views of others without the above. 
 

I’ve just read Greg’s latest distortion, which is linguistically a rule breaker on this forum and a sign of him becoming more ragged. All I really have to say to that is; he is in total denial and delusion about ‘ad hominem’. If he thinks Alex mischaracterising some of the posters here as anti-semitic or readers or subscribers to Mein Campf or worse is not a personal attack, he is out of his mind. They haven’t done a thing to deserve it. It’s way over the line. Just so we are clear, this has zero to do with any characterisations of myself and I make no claims that I have a halo over my own head. 

 

Alex, I think, recognises that he has been way over the line here, even if Greg doesn’t. He knows its beyond banter (playful humour). He seems to like a cliché; so have one more. “Never a truer word said in jest.”

 

I’ll say this; the criticism that Greg/Aex have directed at this forum, for the off topic postings, may well have some merit on a case by case basis. i also think that they don’t understand the world we are living in. But, their Debunked section on ROKC is the worst possible advert for JFKA research. Its claimed that they both care deeply about the case and seeing justice. My advice is; be introspective and clean your acts up. 
 

As for your divulging of personal circumstances; this really is an example of Greg’s character. I have zero curiosity about your personal business, John, but, it was an obvious veiled threat from Greg, and a reflection of his poor character. 

Amen to that.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

I've just read Greg's latest distortion ... he is in total denial and delusion about 'ad hominem'. If he thinks Alex mischaracterising some of the posters here as anti-semitic or readers or subscribers to Mein Campf or worse is not a personal attack, he is out of his mind.

Chris seems to have misunderstood the comment he is replying to, which I assume is this one, posted some hours before Chris's reply:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700p25-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion#42016

'Ad hominem' does not mean simply making an unkind or sarcastic personal comment about someone. It means countering someone's argument by attacking them personally. The countering-someone's-argument part is the essential element. That's what turns a personal comment into an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Greg even dug up an excellent discussion of this much-misused term. I hope he won't mind if I quote it here, for the edification of those who are keen to use the term without understanding what it means:

Quote

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem (boldface added by Greg, for good reason)

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

Chris seems to have misunderstood the comment he is replying to, which I assume is this one, posted some hours before Chris's reply:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700p25-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion#42016

'Ad hominem' does not mean simply making an unkind or sarcastic personal comment about someone. It means countering someone's argument by attacking them personally. The countering-someone's-argument part is the essential element. That's what turns a personal comment into an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Greg even dug up an excellent discussion of this much-misused term. I hope he won't mind if I quote it here, for the edification of those who are keen to use the term without understanding what it means:

 

Thanks, Jeremy. Beyond loyalty, there is rationality. I’ll presume you whole heartedly agree with any other criticisms of Greg and Alex. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

But, their Debunked section on ROKC is the worst possible advert for JFKA research.

In fact, the opposite is true. We owe the members of the ROKC a debt of gratitude for authoritatively shredding the looniest and most embarrassing fringe theories in this case ("Harvey" and/or "Lee," I'm aiming a Minox camera in your direction...) -- theories that impugn the integrity and credibility of the JFK research community at large.

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In fact, the opposite is true. We owe the members of the ROKC a debt of gratitude for authoritatively shredding the looniest and most embarrassing fringe theories in this case ("Harvey" and/or "Lee," I'm aiming a Minox camera in your direction...) -- theories that impugn the integrity and credibility of the JFK research community at large.

Jonathan,

     How many times have you repeated this "authoritative shredding" trope about the Oswald doppelganger evidence?

     It's your same old song and dance.

     But, on the contrary, if I recall correctly, David Josephs and Jim Hargrove took you ROTC Doppelganger Deniers to the cleaners the last time this subject was discussed here on the Education Forum.

     As for Jeremy B. triumphantly posting a definition of "ad hominem" from external sources, he could have found precisely the same definition in one of my original posts here earlier this year.

[Jonathan Cohen]

56 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jonathan,

     How many times have you repeated this "authoritative shredding" trope about the Oswald doppelganger evidence?

     It's your same old song and dance.

     But, on the contrary, if I recall correctly, David Josephs and Jim Hargrove took you ROTC Doppelganger Deniers to the cleaners the last time this subject was discussed here on the Education Forum.

W: they did no such thing. The Harvey and Lee theory has been destroyed by Mark Stevens, Robert Charles Dunne, and Jeremy B. in numerous threads right here on this forum - not just at ROKC. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

W: they did no such thing. The Harvey and Lee theory has been destroyed by Mark Stevens, Robert Charles Dunne, and Jeremy B. in numerous threads right here on this forum - not just at ROKC. 

You keep saying that, but people can study the commentaries of Josephs, Hargrove, Larsen, Stevens, Jeremy B., et.al., and judge for themselves whether your repeated "spin" is true.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jonathan Cohen]

18 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

You keep saying that, but people can study the commentaries of Josephs, Hargrove, Larsen, Stevens, Jeremy B., et.al., and judge for themselves whether your repeated "spin" is true.

Of course they can judge for themselves, as they already have. Numerous member polls right here on this forum show that the vast majority of researchers reject this silly, ridiculous theory.