Don Roberdeau Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) Welcome aboard, Mel. What is your chosen profession(s), and your qualifications/achievements? Have you been to Dealey Plaza? (most recent time?) How many of the DP witnesses have you ever interviewed? (which specific witnesses, if any?)....I recently found out, from .John McAdams himself, no less, that he has interviewed, exactly, only 2 assassination witnesses (JACK & JOAN FRANZEN in one, simultaneous, interview, of which I have a video copy of the interview, and its...line of questioning) What is your scientific reasoning with regards to the 6.5mm, nearly round, object never testified to by HUMES (nor anyone else) in 1964 (even though this 6.5 mm object was exceedingly larger than the head frags HUMES et al did testify to in 1964), yet, that same conveniently-sized 6.5 mm object was first blatantly reported about as being seen by similarly-or-better-qualified professionals on the xrays, but many years later? If you think this 6.5 mm object on the outer table of the skull is a bullet frag, what are the physics chain-of-events that you believe sheared-off, then, embedded a 1800-2000 f.p.s., copper, military-specifications-jacketed, non-frangible bullet fragment onto the outside table of the skull, and, above the skull wound? (do you subscribe to the warrenatti rear head entrance point, or, the HSCA rear impact location?) Have to say.... IMHO, I admire a person for being "stand up" to come here with contrarian views and "face the music," so to speak (even if his views presented, so far, are very broad, generalizations, rationalizations, and mixed with several personal o-pines).... A few words for the wise, --for everyone, that is-- imho, emotions-particularly anger- is (for the most part) a life-forward-imobilizing emotion, and, especially, with respect to this case, should be left out of discussions by The Knowledgeable for the progress of The Truth to The People to be, truly, achieved. If I may take a moment, Mel, for a straightforward thought of advice.... Please, leave any mo-rahn-ic, over-arrogant, blatant-dodging/lies not supported by the evidence, etc. attitudes outside the forum log-in door. (you are aware that the entire NAA validity of chemical comparative analysis of bullet fragments is currently, seriously, being called into question --and has been thrown-out or disallowed for evidence entering by the judicial courts, right?) Don Roberdeau U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore "A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body." ---- 7HSCA175 describing President KENNEDY's, theorized, not-completely-probed, neck and back wounds Edited April 19, 2005 by Don Roberdeau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 [ This forced these issues to be discussed on radio and television. Articles began appearing in mainstream newspapers. In the long term Mockingbird failed to deliver. As a result the CIA (Operation Mockingbird) had to change its tactics. It could no longer argue convincingly that JFK had been killed by a lone gunman. It therefore had to resort to Plan B. Mockingbird therefore used its media assets like Jack Anderson to push the Mafia theory. It also manipulated the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation. This included the appointment of G. Robert Blakey as chief counsel of the HSCA. He in turn appointed Dick Billings as editorial director of the report. Billings had been a long-time CIA media asset. ___________ John, I agree that SOME of the press went to Plan B, but by and large the press in the US has continued as it has from the beginning: to say LHO acting alone killed JFK. Mainstream press in the US is most unkind to people who know there was a conspiracy. Conspiracy believers are portrayed as a bit nuts. Operation Mockingbird has been a tremedous success. That many people have become educated on this subject is due to the work of the dilligent critics. Not to the press in this country. Just look at what the press did to Oliver Stone in the 6 months prior to the relase of "JFK". Never has been a film so trashed. By the right, the left and the middle. All of mainstream journalism treated Stone with utter contempt and hostility. Anyone: name me any person in the "establishment" US press who writes the truth on this subject. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Dawn, I do agree. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 While I agree that the media behaves like a flock of birds, and that they will rarely question the established government line, I find it impossible to believe that men like Jack Anderson and Ben Bradlee took orders from anyone. When Anderson wrote his Sturgis and Rosselli-based stories, he was stirring up crap, raking the muck,and upsetting people, which he believed was his job. His mentor, Drew Pearson, was close to LBJ and had performed the occasional hatchet-job, but there's no evidence Anderson was in anyone's pocket. Let's remember here that Hunt and Liddy made plans to murder Anderson due to the government's inability to control him and prevent him from leaking CIA top secret info. Let's remember that Anderson was the one who broke ranks and talked about the Glomar Explorer, which was a total slap in the face to the CIA and its attempts at controlling the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Pat wrote:[...] I agree with you that there's an awful lot of bs on this Forum and within the research community--Fetzer's work on Zapruder film alteration, for example. or Lifton's work on body alteration. [...] --------------- I'm sure David Mantik MD, PhD. will appreciate those comments, after all he's probably spent more time at NARA studying and handling autopsy [medical] related evidence than anyone in the United States, I believe he's contributed to 3 of Jim Fetzer's books -- As to work on the Z-film film, well Mantik also holds a PhD in Physics and certainly can comment on the Z-film -- I await your credentials regarding film printing and film composition and forensics... As a wanna-be-writer dealing with JFK Assassination material, commenting about Zapruder Film in particular, I'm sure you can debate the pluses and minuses of optical film printing, in relationship to said film, YES? David Lifton? Well he's a past NYT best selling author, Pat. Not a wanna-be-writer... in 2 months or so, you'll be glad to know, the 2003 Univ. of Minn Synposium on the Zapruder Film will be available on DVD and/or videotape -- Mantik, Costella, Fetzer [all three Phd's] Lifton, White and yours truly FULL presentations are covered. Stay tuned! So, BS aside, I await your professional critique regarding Zapruder film alteration... You never know who reads these threads, Pat! You never know! DHealy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm sorry if I offended you, David, by using the term b.s. I believe both Mantik and Fetzer are well-intentioned and I would not want any discussion about them to drift into the nastiness of the Thompson/Fetzer feud of a few years ago. You haven't offended ME! Having been in the middle of those debates a few years back, I see them a bit differently than maybe you or others around here. I see them as being spirited -- disagreement from 2 titanic egos, a prerequisite for authorship regarding controversial subject matter, between them, what? 20+ books published? The majority by-the-way by Fetzer I do take issue with a number of your comments. I disagree that Mantik's visits to NARA somehow make him THE authority. Your suggestion of this is self-contradictory, since you believe that the autopsy doctors, who saw the actual body, and the HSCA, which spent months discussing the wounds and exaiming the photos, were both wrong. dgh01: are you ALSO suggesting David Mantik is NOT a MD, whom also holds a PhD. in Physics? Whom has studied on quite a few occasions the very evidence discussed, in person at NARA. The X-Rays and JFK's clothing in particular? If you wish to worship at the cult of expertise--which Thompson complains about and which even an expert like Cyril Wecht agrees is dangerous--then you have to side with all the government "experts" as well. dgh01: ahh, let's get Gary Mack at the head of THAT list -- roflmao -- the Tinkster complains about a lot of crap, especially when it comes to rocking the Z-film boat -- not the least is the 'cult' of expertise. I do believe you can quote Tink as saying, when viewing the Z-film wayback when, when he was hired by LIFE Magazine "... the Zapruder film is the truth..." May of been Lifton a few years ago, during the UofMinn Symposium on the Z-film who said Tink said that... ALL past "EXPERTS" that entered this investigation prior to 10 years ago and make their opinions known in the media should be out on the collective asses And many of them are as you know, dead wrong. Unless you are going to somehow show how Baden, Guinn, and Canning are all in agreement with Mantik, then your whole "expert" argument is proven fallacious. I'm not presenting a argument for or against experts, based on my experience regarding this "expert nonsense, all the above experts certainly have agendas... Please read my seminar and compare it to Dr. Mantik's; while he has the advantage in experience, most will almost certainly agree mine has the advantage on sound reasoning. And your argument about Lifton is equally weak. While I respect Lifton's devotion I disagree with many of his conclusions. One has to wonder, for instance, why he excludes the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza from his theory of alteration. dgh01: Lifton "devotion" is not in question here -- being published was? [/b] After all, since they all seemed to think the large wound was on the top or side of JFK's head, then that would mean the wound was changed en route to Parkland, only to be changed back on Air Force One on the way to Bethesda. And this is twice as wild a story. So what if he sold a bunch of books? The Warren Report sold more than Accessories After the Fact, and which one has more credibility? I suggest you restrain yourself from attacking myself and others on the basis of our "wanna-be" status. dgh01: then I suggest you remove it from your 'forum' signature block... If you read my seminar, you'll see that I believe the suggestion of alteration in the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film only has merit if the photos and film do indeed show evidence for a lone-nut scenario, and I believe they indicate convincingly that Kennedy himself was shot three times, making a conclusion of conspiracy almost inevitable. Please read my seminar and tell me where I'm wrong. dgh01: 3 times? Amazing -- I think David Mantik believes the same thing, and he leans towards film alteration, both motion type film AND X-Rays, imagine that... Argue that the photos and Zapruder film PROVE the lone nut theory, and then we'll talk. dgh01: thanks for the warning -- we've nothing to talk about, guess you haven't read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax -- Again why don't you remove that 'wanna be writer' thingy from your SIG block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 If you read my seminar, you'll see that I believe the suggestion of alteration in the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film only has merit if the photos and film do indeed show evidence for a lone-nut scenario, and I believe they indicate convincingly that Kennedy himself was shot three times, making a conclusion of conspiracy almost inevitable. Please read my seminar and tell me where I'm wrong. dgh01: 3 times? Amazing -- I think David Mantik believes the same thing, and he leans towards film alteration, both motion type film AND X-Rays, imagine that... Argue that the photos and Zapruder film PROVE the lone nut theory, and then we'll talk. dgh01: thanks for the warning -- we've nothing to talk about, guess you haven't read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax -- Again why don't you remove that 'wanna be writer' thingy from your SIG block <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David, I was hoping this tread could be a spirited but respectful discussion between Mel and others over the single-bullet theory and other ideas prevalent in lone-nut country. If you wanna discuss film alteration let's do it on another thread. P.S. I have read Dr. Mantik's work, and find him credible on certain issues. I respect the man. I also respect Dr. Fetzer. I've read Assassination Science and much of the Zapruder Film Hoax. I just don't agree with them on the alteration of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film. I do suspect the lateral x-ray has been tainted or damaged in some way. While I don't worship expertise I do try and respect people who know what they are talking about , and I have yet to meet someone with a film background who believes the tecnology existed in 1963 to create a fake Zapruder film. My personal argument is that it is nonsensical to believe the government would fake the film, since the film. as is, is convincing evidence that 1) Kennedy was hit before 224 from behind 2)Kennedy and Connally were both hit at 224 from behind, from a trajectory inconsistent with the TSBD, and 3) Kennedy was hit at 313 from behind. This makes at least three hits, which is inconsistent with Oswald's abilities. So why fake something that shows a conspiracy and then deny there's a conspiracy? If you choose to respond to this, let's start a fresh thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Maybe, if Mel is going to stick around, he could produce a piece aimed at us, rather than the "average Joe" who spends very little time thinking about the evidence in this case. To me, using this to introduce yourself, to a forum of people who study & research the case, is somewhat humourous & if only it was mildly interesting it would have been patronising too. Coming back with something that deserves debating would show a little respect(did you actually read some before before you posted?). Maybe you could find some facts in those books your selling that are actually worth debating. Or would that defeat your purpose? TTFN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel Ayton Posted April 20, 2005 Author Share Posted April 20, 2005 Maybe, if Mel is going to stick around, he could produce a piece aimed at us, rather than the "average Joe" who spends very little time thinking about the evidence in this case.To me, using this to introduce yourself, to a forum of people who study & research the case, is somewhat humourous & if only it was mildly interesting it would have been patronising too. Coming back with something that deserves debating would show a little respect(did you actually read some before before you posted?). Maybe you could find some facts in those books your selling that are actually worth debating. Or would that defeat your purpose? TTFN <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alan Healy's comments are probably one of the reasons why some supporters of the lone assassin conclusions 'do not stick around', as John Simkin put it. His use of ridicule, sneers and unfounded accusations reveal exactly what frame of mind he is in - nothing I say or do will have an effect on him, I'm convinced, even if I post numerous rebuttals to the points he makes. I don’t know why people would behave like this – for the most part such comments are immature, not very humorous and pretty insulting. What mature person would want to 'stick around'? Alan said I should be coming back with something worth debating.This implies that the previous exchanges between myself and Pat Speer were worthless. And, as I intimated earlier, I will not always be in the position to post immediately, because of work demands. Thanks to those members who have been polite, rational and civil – I appreciate your previous comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Even though assassination conspiracy theories have been successfully challenged time after time and found to be without merit, they have remained very appealing. Conspiracy theories are powerfully seductive, offering mystery and intrigue to the reader. Additionally, a conspiracy with a valid aim suggests control; the psychotic actions of a lone individual suggest chaos. Mel complains about insulting remarks, yet it’s okay for him to write the above about CTs. The above is the same kind of condescending crap we’ve gotten from Peter Jennings and other WC apologists. I’m sure those who watched Jennings’s government propaganda program about the JFK case recall him saying insultingly at the end that people believe in conspiracy because they have a need to, they can’t handle the notion that some loser like Oswald could change history all by himself. Not a word about people believing in conspiracy because of things called evidence and common sense, of simply following evidence where it leads. Color me over-sensitive, but nothing ticks me off more than this holier than thou attitude that says lone nutters are normal people while CTs are weaklings needing a psychological crutch, something that represents “control” as opposed to “chaos” in their lives, so that they can get a grip on reality. IMO if Mel has been the recipient of what he feels is an unwarranted insult on this forum, that’s too bad. It’s called getting a dose of your own medicine. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 (edited) Pat wrote: [...] David, I was hoping this tread could be a spirited but respectful discussion between Mel and others over the single-bullet theory and other ideas prevalent in lone-nut country. If you wanna discuss film alteration let's do it on another thread. dgh02: quite simply, Mel is a jerk, there are others on this board who have forgot more about the JFK assassination than Mel will ever know P.S. I have read Dr. Mantik's work, and find him credible on certain issues. I respect the man. I also respect Dr. Fetzer. I've read Assassination Science and much of the Zapruder Film Hoax. I just don't agree with them on the alteration of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film. I do suspect the lateral x-ray has been tainted or damaged in some way. While I don't worship expertise I do try and respect people who know what they are talking about , and I have yet to meet someone with a film background who believes the tecnology existed in 1963 to create a fake Zapruder film. dgh02: tell you what Pat, are you qualified in reviewing that 'someones' background? How about, get and READ Raymond Fielding's The Technique of SpecialEffects Cinematography, First Published in 1965, reprinted in 1968, re-released in 198? Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-8116. If Raymond doesn't convince you of the FACT that the equipment, techniques, know-how AND personnel were available to do ANY optical printing deed late '63 early '64, hell, for that matter the early 40's, when optical printing really got underway; propoganda films for WW2 -- or you can always ask ME, LOL !! Raymond still teachs film school in Florida someplace, he's still out there. You might take a peek at the INDEX in Raymond's book, review the SMPE [society of Motion Picture Engineers - which by the way was created in 1915, their first project was setting the film standards for 35mm film in 1915] footnotes dealing with film compositing *blackart* techniques, it's all there in black and white [pardon the pun]... btw, Rollie Zavada, whom I've spoken to, on more than one occasion, regarding this subject, is/was (he may of retired recently) a long standing member of SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) My personal argument is that it is nonsensical to believe the government would fake the film, since the film. dgh02: Who said the government 'faked' the film?( hell, even David Lifton doesn't think the government 'faked the film', that doesn't mean, they, the gov didn't think it was a good idea) Not I! Ya see, there's problem when ANYONE deals with this film alteration issue. Simply, folks that don't know the craft of compositing, nor post assassination timelines, jump in and muddy the waters. dealing with: When and WHO saw what? How much relevance to place on frames that were published, exmp'l: where frames cropped prior to publication? Did publications "touchup frames, transpose frames [out of sequence, just another word for ""alteration""] like the MPI folks did in their last DVD release, not to mention what the FBI did early on in the WC investigation...? There is precedence for "alteration" regarding the Z-film as is, is convincing evidence that 1) Kennedy was hit before 224 from behind 2)Kennedy and Connally were both hit at 224 from behind, from a trajectory inconsistent with the TSBD, and 3) Kennedy was hit at 313 from behind. This makes at least three hits, which is inconsistent with Oswald's abilities. So why fake something that shows a conspiracy and then deny there's a conspiracy? dgh:02 ahh, conspiracy is such a ""BROAD"" subject, isn't it? How about: create LHO as the sole, whacked out LONE assassin-patsy perhaps? That goes back to the Single Bullet Theory, doesn't it? Anyway, when someone get's up to speed around here regarding optical film printing and motion picture compositing, I/we will just plug along waiting for the first opportunity to do a little film forensics Hi GaryM, how are ya? Great NAB this year David Edited April 20, 2005 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 (edited) Hi Mel: Bernice,Quote:" I notice you relate to Lee Harvey Oswald..in your article ...as being :presumed to be the: lone assassin: Oswald as a self appointed champion of Castro: Lone Madman: L.H.O. murdered Police Officer Tippit within an hour of shooting the President : also crazed assassin... But that he is not referred to as the Alleged or as an Accused... He was never found guilty... in a court of law..therefore he is not.....I am sure the membership awaits, your proof of such...." Are we going to see any proof of any of your insinuations,above pertaining to LHO, that you have stated since you began this thread?? BTW: you stated there was no conspiracy so I left you a link for the Consp. Novice, where do you think anyone begins?? it was not meant as an insult it was meant to be as much help in a condescending way, to you as you posting Rahn's link all over the Forum..for others.......touchy aren't we....? Quote Mel: "", bogus witnesses like Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver ‘selling’ their autographs"".. I am also asking for your proof of the above accusations ... when and where did you ever see Beverly sign and accept money for her autograph...??? or was that information related to you, if so would you tell us by whom...?? This accusation, unfounded and not proven so far, is a very serious remark.... Quote Mel: about Alan's reply"..."His use of ridicule, sneers and unfounded accusations reveal exactly what frame of mind he is in."....- Like more of the pot calling the kettle burnt arse I believe.....!! You expect a serious discussion when your article, and each of your following posts have been so condescending...you set the theme, and then are complaining about such...?? It just doesn't work that way..where is your proof...?? It is very easy to make any accusation towards anyone, but then not back up such, nor answer to when questioned...and go on to the next kindly written response to you ,ignoring what has been asked in relpy in a previous post.. ..You simply ignore what you cannot prove, yet continue to do so, and choose to complain, when people become somewhat fed up with your performance, and that to me is exactly what it is, same old, same pat answers...Like a one sided game, that has been going on for nearly 42 years..... everyone be respectful to me, even though I am not, or I shall take my toys and go home...I am so important that if I do you shall all be sorry......about what??...there has been no "Beef" shown so far......same old ... Most have seen this all before, if not read and pay attention, you will not see this often..this is how the LNrs always perform.....Some may think Mel is somewhat brave to come and attend a Conspiracy Forum, IMO...no, he is not, they, he and his buds,on the Rahn site, are hoping they are accomplishing what they set out to do, how many of you have stopped your research and have been spending your time instead attending to and researching this particular thread...and how many newbies, may have had some doubts he has imposed upon you without showing you any proof of such...in relation to something specific he has stated.... That is why he is here, not for any great debate, not for any civil discussion, nor to show you his proof.......not for the relating of any information that may lead to any astounding new breakthrough...... in otherwards he is here to waste your time,and the Forums resources and try to create doubts....Well it isn't working for this Conspiracy believer, and it sure as hell doesn't appear to be working for many others.....You are a Classic, Gov ,WC defender which just in case no one has told you, the public never bought, because they can read..... If there was no conspiracy why do you ,your cohorts ,the Posners,and such ,along with the Media and the Government work so hard at trying to prove there wasn't... and make out that 82% of the public are "conspiracy nut bars"??????? Carry on, but when you do pick up your toys, and leave,don't forget to make sure the Forum and it's membership are to blame...not all of course...and not the few LNrs, who will continue to sit in the background....and report to you and yours....and not those that try to sit in the middle and try to use both sides to forward their future ,just the members that asked for your proof, who you will say insulted you...because you cannot take what you give out.......therefore you cannot carry on under such conditions as it is useless.......same old..... Ron and David.....good posts B Edited April 21, 2005 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Hi Bernice.... thatt'a girl David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 (edited) I think Mel should be accorded respect for the integrity of his opinions. I offer this comment however: If assassination researchers are incorrect in all but one of their assertions, but correct in that single assertion, then a conspiracy is proved. Each and every one of the myriad reasons to suspect a conspiracy must be WRONG for the "lone nut" scenario to withstand scrutiny. For instance, if it was not possible for Oswald to hide the rifle and get down the stairs before Truly and Baker saw him on the second floor that fact alone exculpates Oswald. According to Warren Commission counsel David Belin Oswald would not have had time to get down the stairs and purchase a coke before the encounter (showing how tight the time frame was). Therefore, the entire lone nut scenario rests, per Belin, on whether LHO purchased the Coke before or after Truly and Baker saw him. Even if the Coke was purchased after the encounter, the purchase of the Coke (and presumably its consumption) by a fleeing assassin seems odd. Another example. Most people would agree that a pre-assassination association between LHO and Jack Ruby would be fairly conclusive evidence of a conspiracy. There were many people who reported seeing them together. If all but one person making such a report was mistaken or lying the single true sighting of them together is sufficient to establish a conspiracy. I will not list all the reasons suggesting a conspiracy; they are numerous indeed. My point is simply that every single reason must be in error if the lone nut scenario is to prevail. I would also point out that a bipartisan committee of congress found there was probably a conspiracy and there was not a single dissenter from either party. Edited April 21, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 It is worthwhile in this thread to link to an excellent article by the late Professor Richard Popkin: (from John's recent post on Prof Popkin's death): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpopkin.htm You can find the original article in the New York Review of Books here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/P...ond_Oswald.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 (edited) Alan Healy's comments are probably one of the reasons why some supporters of the lone assassin conclusions 'do not stick around', as John Simkin put it. His use of ridicule, sneers and unfounded accusations reveal exactly what frame of mind he is in" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I like this forum & you have insulted me by posting this essay here. This is an education & research forum for serious students of the case. You cannot understand how your piece is not right for this platform? I want you to up your game that is all. - nothing I say or do will have an effect on him, I'm convinced, even if I post numerous rebuttals to the points he makes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How can you rebutt the fact that your original piece was meant for public consumption & that this is is a forum of researchers who deserve better. As for "effect me". Effect me how? With what? Do I have to guess what your talking about? I don’t know why people would behave like this – for the most part such comments are immature, not very humorous and pretty insulting. What mature person would want to 'stick around'? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So,your not posting the link to your website in the hope of selling books & the piece you posted is the best you can do? No problem, you stay,I'll leave. Have fun! Alan said I should be coming back with something worth debating. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes & I was talking about what you first posted, It's a bit lighweight IMO. Edited April 21, 2005 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now