Owen Parsons Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) To which Owen Parsons replied:This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA. Owen, I take it, then, that you: (a) do not believe that LBJ was involved in the Kennedy assassination (if he was surely he should not have won); and ( do not agree with John Simkin's assessment that LBJ was one of the most corrupt American politicians. Of course, if you disagreed with Goldwater's politics but thought LBJ was corrupt, you would have, I suspect, quite a difficult choice. I suspect this is more revealing than anything you will get from Owen. You're most certainly correct. You will never get anything like that from me. All you can to do is attack my age, not my arguments. Who is really being infantile here? What kind of "educator" are you if you tell a high schooler (me) to drop out of school? Edit: Correction, I suppose the "pithy" stuff was for Frank Agbat. Edited November 16, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) You sound like a whiner, teachers educate students, not whiners. But I'll give you one more shot to tell us the truth, are you really a young, wanabe, Karl Rove-style Republican? Here's what you need to know if you are: You need to discredit all this because it makes your hero look bad. This note from Patrick J. Buchanan to Richard Nixon, November 10, 1972, spells out your challenge: "A small, ideological clique has managed to acquire monopoly control of the most powerful medium of communication known to man; and they regularly use threat unrivaled power to politically assault the President and his Administration. This is not a question of free speech, or free press -it is a basic question of power.... What I would like to do in this area is work with those of a similar cast of mind to develop, quietly, a media strategy for dealing with the Left combination of the networks - and other powerful organs of opinion. It would include our defences against the network, a strategy against their monopoly control, and a thought-out program for cleaning out public television of that clique of Nixon-haters who have managed to nest there at taxpayer expense." As I have repeatedly indicated, it is not possible to rehabilitate a loser/xxxx like Jim Garrison, [he said he believed in the Warrent Report until 1966, helloooo] nobody is that stupidf. If, as you suggest, Jim Garrison believed in the Warren Report for as long as he did because he hadn't bothered to actually read it , that may be true or not, but he did not have to read it to find out the truth. He had access to David Ferrie, he knew the truth. Post a picture so I know how young you look. Edited November 16, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 (edited) Wasn't it you that was whining about your "free speech" in the media thread, when you have been able to spam unimpeded here? You are in no place to accuse others of whining. Richard Nixon is not my hero, so I am under no obligation to debunk your favorite Mat Wilson article. I already rebutted one garbage article and you pretty much ignored it. Why should now be different? I have better things to do with my time. Your comment about David Ferrie is nonsensical. David Ferrie was supposed to have debunked the Warren Report (before the Commission had even started, before the Zapruder film, before any of the evidence was in) for Garrison during the brief time he was in his custody in November 1963? Is this what you are getting at? Again, where does David Ferrie even fit into your theory anyway? Edited November 17, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 (edited) David Ferrie, Howard Hunt and Sturgis were like-minded fanatics who would have enthusiastically volunteered to deliver a patsy like Oswald. I am sure that Garison was in a much better position to expose much more than the critics ever did, he should have been leading, rather than following/hijacking their investigations. I'll tell you what I'll do for you since you are such an eager student. I will take you under my wing and magnify your estimation of Jim Garrison. Harold Weisberg was wrong when he said that Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse. The fact is, Jim Garrison was such a brilliant man that he could find a needle in a haystack. The problem is, J. Edgar Hoover did not allow Jim Garrison or anybody else to expose the truth, because if he ever tried, he would have been a sorry drunk like Dorothy Killgalen. Now we all know that Dorothy Killgalen was not a sorry drunk but that's what Hoover/Posner say. You see, others tend to inherit Hoover's cover up. Now pay attention to this because it is very, very important. This is what Jim Garrison was in a position to know as early as November 29, 1963, but if he tried to debunk any of it, he would be a dead duck. It's all really that simple. Now, who was it that said that you can find the truth buried in a whole lot of graves, he was obviously not talking about Garrison's was he? Edited November 17, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Sorry to butt in folks, Owen, Lynne's right about one thing, a photo would be nice, helps to humanize communications (HA HA) Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 Stephen, are you responding for Dawn, because she wants to be my therapist and your cryptic comments are making my recovery very painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Dawn works in Law, I however work in psychiatry, if I can be of any help please let me know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 Is that you in the picture. I understand that psychiatrists and lawyers work together in a practice called, 'you cover my ass and I'll cover yours." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Is that you in the picture. I understand that psychiatrists and lawyers work together in a practice called, 'you cover my ass and I'll cover yours." Ah, diagnosis, severe paranoid reaction. Therapy urgently required. Patient has lost touch with reality, and believes herself to be a JFK researcher. Nurse, the big injection please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 Is that you in the picture. I understand that psychiatrists and lawyers work together in a practice called, 'you cover my ass and I'll cover yours." Ah, diagnosis, severe paranoid reaction. Therapy urgently required. Patient has lost touch with reality, and believes herself to be a JFK researcher. Nurse, the big injection please. Perhaps this is more relevant to the "media" thread, but I think you should know that when the CIA employs psychiatrists and lawyers, they act the way that you and Dawn are currently acting. Oops, another leak.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Is that you in the picture. I understand that psychiatrists and lawyers work together in a practice called, 'you cover my ass and I'll cover yours." Ah, diagnosis, severe paranoid reaction. Therapy urgently required. Patient has lost touch with reality, and believes herself to be a JFK researcher. Nurse, the big injection please. Perhaps this is more relevant to the "media" thread, but I think you should know that when the CIA employs psychiatrists and lawyers, they act the way that you and Dawn are currently acting. Oops, another leak.... Would you mind lying on that black couch please Lynne. Paranoia is a term used by Mental health specialists to describe suspiciousness (or mistrust) that is either highly exaggerated, or not warranted at all. This behavior can be classified into three main categories. 1 Paranoid personality disorder. 2 Delusional disorder (paranoid type) 3 Paranoid Schizophrenia. People suffering from Paranoid personality disorder tend to confirm their suspicions by latching on to any shred of evidence that supports their view, and ignore, or misinterpret any evidence to the contrary. They expect trickery, and doubt the motives of others. They tend to be defensive, antagonistic, argumentative, and uncompromising, yet, strangely, pride themselves on their rationality and objectivity. Sound like anyone we know??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 (edited) That sounds like Lisa Pease and Jim Garrison. Nice Work. Edited November 17, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Is that you in the picture. I understand that psychiatrists and lawyers work together in a practice called, 'you cover my ass and I'll cover yours." Ah, diagnosis, severe paranoid reaction. Therapy urgently required. Patient has lost touch with reality, and believes herself to be a JFK researcher. Nurse, the big injection please. Perhaps this is more relevant to the "media" thread, but I think you should know that when the CIA employs psychiatrists and lawyers, they act the way that you and Dawn are currently acting. Oops, another leak.... Would you mind lying on that black couch please Lynne. Paranoia is a term used by Mental health specialists to describe suspiciousness (or mistrust) that is either highly exaggerated, or not warranted at all. This behavior can be classified into three main categories. 1 Paranoid personality disorder. 2 Delusional disorder (paranoid type) 3 Paranoid Schizophrenia. People suffering from Paranoid personality disorder tend to confirm their suspicions by latching on to any shred of evidence that supports their view, and ignore, or misinterpret any evidence to the contrary. They expect trickery, and doubt the motives of others. They tend to be defensive, antagonistic, argumentative, and uncompromising, yet, strangely, pride themselves on their rationality and objectivity. Sound like anyone we know??? --------------------------------------- "..SOUND LIKE ANYONE WE KNOW???!!" MY GAWD -- Sounds just like Moi !! I am about to call the Veterans Medical Center, or trek on up to nearby Fort Bragg -- and DEMAND an immediate appointment with the HNIC "Head" Head/shrinker !! Gee, I hope they don't want to just talk about politics again. This time they have to get seriously inside my cranial cavity -- might be some left-over "Mercury" fragments there -- OOOoops, that's the other dude -- what's his name?? Rhymes with Dealey or Hyde Park methinks ??!! Once again upon the beginning of this psych/session I will softly hum my favorite "Rude-Yard" Kipling song; or was it a sonnet, or a poem?? Y'all gotta help me in this !! Oh ! Know I 'member -- it's at the beginning of the Afghan/Soviet war movie -- "The Beast" [came from some L.A. fruitcake play called "Nanawatai"] "OOOOHHHMMM!!" "...If you lie wounded on Aghanistan plains And the women coming running to cut up what remains Then roll over on yer' rifle and blow out your brains And go to your Gawd like a Soljer !! ------------------------------------------- AAARGH !! "It's Chicken Man...It's Chicken Man...He's everywhere...He's everywhere !! [Miami Radio Commercial -- 1970s] Chairs, GPH __________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 [quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 17 2005, 07:28 PM' post='45568'] That sounds like Lisa Pease and Jim Garrison. Nice Work. Now this fruitloop is trashing Lisa Pease too???? Lynne, we're all onto you here so take your tiny brain and vile mouth and and do some READING. I DARE YOU to actually find a bookstore and get Joan Mellen's book and read it. But you won't. You're afraid to because then you'd actually LEARN something. Interesting that you've now accused just about everyone here of being a CIA plant. But you don't think the CIA is guilty of anything.... Your logic just astounds me. I have no interest in being your "therapist", but it's clear you could greatly benefit from therapy. I doubt you even knew the name Lisa Pease before I posted it a bit ago. You're truly one sick woman. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 17, 2005 Author Share Posted November 17, 2005 David Ferrie, Howard Hunt and Sturgis were like-minded fanatics who would have enthusiastically volunteered to deliver a patsy like Oswald. I am sure that Garison was in a much better position to expose much more than the critics ever did, he should have been leading, rather than following/hijacking their investigations.I'll tell you what I'll do for you since you are such an eager student. I will take you under my wing and magnify your estimation of Jim Garrison. Harold Weisberg was wrong when he said that Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse. The fact is, Jim Garrison was such a brilliant man that he could find a needle in a haystack. The problem is, J. Edgar Hoover did not allow Jim Garrison or anybody else to expose the truth, because if he ever tried, he would have been a sorry drunk like Dorothy Killgalen. Now we all know that Dorothy Killgalen was not a sorry drunk but that's what Hoover/Posner say. You see, others tend to inherit Hoover's cover up. Now pay attention to this because it is very, very important. This is what Jim Garrison was in a position to know as early as November 29, 1963, but if he tried to debunk any of it, he would be a dead duck. It's all really that simple. Now, who was it that said that you can find the truth buried in a whole lot of graves, he was obviously not talking about Garrison's was he? Dawn, if you want to help your student, you should explain the above document to him. 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