Tim Gratz Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Bill wrote: As a hack without scruples himself, Holland should certainly know whose scrupulous and whose not. Bill (gently) for the two "whose" in that sentence, substitute "who is". Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 (edited) [...] history is replete with conspiracy.Dawn _________________________________ Dawn, You can say that again. FWIW, Thomas _________________________________ Edited February 5, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Bill wrote:As a hack without scruples himself, Holland should certainly know whose scrupulous and whose not. Bill (gently) for the two "whose" in that sentence, substitute "who is". Thanks! Gratz, Whose you talkin too? I ain't no hack like Holland. Who is you? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Bill wrote: As a hack without scruples himself, Holland should certainly know whose scrupulous and whose not. Bill (gently) for the two "whose" in that sentence, substitute "who is". Thanks! Gratz, Whose you talkin too? I ain't no [sic] hack like Holland. Who is you? BK ______________________________ Dis here is gentile correcson-- "I ain't no stinkin' hack [...]" Get it strate. ______________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Thomas: I assume you know what [sic] means. Bill's post and your's where funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Thomas:I assume you know what [sic] means. Bill's post and your's where funny! Hey Tim, I almost flunked english, and wouldn't have slacked off if I knew I would have to write as much, but I aced history, poly sci, logic and ethics and I think I have some pretty good Camden "most dangerous city in USA" street smarts, so I trust my own instincts and judgements. I won't judge you, as my attorney and best friend are currently in Key West and I'm stuc in the rain in the Swamps of Jersey, so i'm jealous of your location, at least for the moment, but, I do judge Holland. Oh, yea, I don't mind your monitoring this fourm and trying being the gadfly, but I do resent serious inquiries, like the Jim Braden thread, being hijacked to Roselli, and this one degenerating into a joke. Your two cents is not always necessary, as we all know what you're going to say. As for Holland, I don't think Mad Max himself believes the crap he writes, but like a loyal lawyer (ala Posner), he bids his client's interests, and he's one slick gunslinger - he doesn't come cheap. He's good at what he does, though he hasn't yet met the Sheriff of Reality, who will someday set him straight. You can't change his mind, even when he's presented with the truth, because his approach is set in stone: Look at the JFK assassination from the perspective of the Warren Commissioners and lawyers, and keep them from being indicted for perjury, conspiracy and treason, at least in the public mind. The network that killed JFK is still active in protecting the guilty, and its very well financed and connected, and Holland is a Bishop/Knight/Rook in the great game that's still being played. When former Warren Commission lawyers got together in DC to organize an effort to contain the backlash from Oliver Stone and JFK, they had no trouble putting together a war chest of millions for a mulit-level public relations campaign - and the Poz, Mailer, Russo, Holland effort is not without massive financial resources. One of those WC lawyers, Norman Redlich, had strong ties to the Nation, and the editorial hammer that it possesses. The conflict of interest isn't on Morley and the Post or Mark Lane and the KGB or Jim Lesar and Bernie Fester, but it's on the CIA/DRE, on Billings and Life Mag., on Holland and the Nation, where real crimes have been committed and being covered up by ostensibly free thinking but paid off journalist hacks and whores. The coup that killed JFK was well organized, and it will take a well organized counter-coup to effectively expose it. Those seeking the truth about the JFK assassination are currently under attack from a well organized and financed opposition, and it will take a well organized and financed response to oppose them, but I don't think the truth seekers are up for the fight. bk bkjfk3@yahoo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Bill, sorry, but I do not believe an inquiry about whether Brading knew Rosselli constitutes "hijacking" your thread. A possible connection of course is that both were from the WC and OC-connected. But whenever someone lists a suspect on this Forum there inevitably numerous comments about the suspect's associations. And many do believe that Rosselli was connected to the assassination so in the minds of many Brading's association with Rosselli would likely help the case you seem to be making aginst him. Bill wrote: When former Warren Commission lawyers got together in DC to organize an effort to contain the backlash from Oliver Stone and JFK, they had no trouble putting together a war chest of millions for a mulit-level public relations Tell me (us) about this, though, Bill. By the way, don't you think the movement of Guss Russo from LHO did it alone (but perhaps inspired by his pro-Castro views) into the conspiracy camp is a step in the right direction? I certainly do not put Russo in the same camp as Posner and Holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Bill, sorry, but I do not believe an inquiry about whether Brading knew Rosselli constitutes "hijacking" your thread. A possible connection of course is that both were from the WC and OC-connected.But whenever someone lists a suspect on this Forum there inevitably numerous comments about the suspect's associations. And many do believe that Rosselli was connected to the assassination so in the minds of many Brading's association with Rosselli would likely help the case you seem to be making aginst him. TIM, I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A CASE AGAINST BRADING OR ANYONE. I WANT TO TALK TO BRADING, AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS AND HELP HIM MAKE THE CASE HE'S INNOCENT OF EVERYTHING. Bill wrote: When former Warren Commission lawyers got together in DC to organize an effort to contain the backlash from Oliver Stone and JFK, they had no trouble putting together a war chest of millions for a mulit-level public relations Tell me (us) about this, though, Bill. TIM, IF YOU READ MARY FERREL'S ASSASSINATION ANIVERSARY SPEECH SHE REFERS TO A MEETING OF FORMER WARREN COMMISSION LAWYERS MEETING IN DC TO ORGANIZE A RESPONSE TO STONE'S MOVIE AND THE RESULTING BACKLASH. SHE REFERS TO A US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT ARTICLE. I ALSO LEARNED FROM SOME FORMER HSCA PEOPLE THAT $30 MILLION WAS PLEDGED TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS. CERTAINLY WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THE RESULTS - POSNER, MAILER, HOLLAND, ET AL ARE ALL SLICK AND WELL GREASED. By the way, don't you think the movement of Guss Russo from LHO did it alone (but perhaps inspired by his pro-Castro views) into the conspiracy camp is a step in the right direction? I certainly do not put Russo in the same camp as Posner and Holland. RUSSO MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS POSNER AND HOLLAND. HOLLAND HIMSELF ATTACKS RUSSO ON SUPERFICIAL LEVELS. GUS STARTED OUT INDEPENDENT BUT CHANGED HIS TUNE MORE THAN ONCE. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE'S "INTO THE CONSPIRACY CAMP" AND THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? MORE ON HOLLAND IS COMING, BTW, BK BKJFK3@YAHOO.COM 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