Charles Black Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 John Dolva In order to insure that I am not taking your "meaning" of the following quote out of context, would you please specifcally explain to me its full meaning ? "SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS HAVE HEARD OF NICE AMERICANS". Perhaps it is one of those statements that are just so "culturally clever" that I would have no way of grasping it. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Charlie, I was curious about who would bite on that one. If you recheck the 'quote' you'll see I wrote 'some of my best acquaintances...". I was going to say 'some of my best friends are americans' but it sounded like such absurdities as 'some of my best friends are black, jewish, muslim etc.. Those who realise I bear no general animosity to americans, cubans or left flippered dolphins should see at least the attempt at humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Jack, I trust that I'm not stretching the rules of the forum by taking this opportunity to renew our acquaintance. If memory serves we last spoke at Jim Fetzer's Minnesota conference. I'll reiterate here what I hope I expressed back then: I harbor the deepest respect for your convictions and for the courage you demonstrate when you express and defend them. Warm regards, Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry J.Dean Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Daniel Wayne...post # 147It is wonderful to hear another "American" member of this forum who has not forgotten the fighting spirit which gave birth to the U.S., made it the greatest power that the world has ever known, in only a period of two and one half centuries, and upon several occasions, has been the primary reason that members here have the privilege of participating in, "what is theoretically", a FREE forum. Not to mention, we are participating with the privilege of using the English language.... rather than German, Russian or Asian. If a lack of culture is a result of being a nation for only this incredibly short time span, I will gladly sacrifice it. The next time the "British" or any of our other "allies" are on the verge of being overwhelmed, overcome and literally "sunk"......... I feel that they should absolutely refuse salvation, unless that person with the life jackets meets their cultural and social criteria. I think many of you British members should band together and erect a colossal memorial to Mr. Neville Chamberlain. He was truly a cultural ideal. Yes we lack culture ! We are the only nation who is so culturally deficient that we have maintained our right for citizens to bear arms. This "lack of culture" has given us the freedom to "bow" before no one at any time. Were this nation to ever be invaded, we have 300 million armed civilians. I personally own approximately a dozen and a half first class firearms. I am openly stating this so that you might more easily classify me as culturally sub-human. By congratulating Daniel Wayne in the opening of this post, I in no way mean to infer that he shares in some of my uncultured beliefs....I therefore wish to spare him the animus that will no doubt be directed at me. When I enrolled in this forum, I had no idea that an American enrolling had lesser stature and rights than "Old World" members. I suppose that this type of ignorance is what a lack of culture must cultivate. Charlie Black CULTURE We, at least in North America, live in a fearsome and gigantic experimental laboratory under trial-and-error-clowns-let-loose. Even in the subconscious of the average citizen, a constant to often unrecognized deep concern drives 'every facet' of daily existance. H.J.Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Hello Harry "...under trial and error clowns let loose" Absolutely....but what is the solution? Another revolution ? Even if accomplished....what would prevent our new "true patriots" from very shortly succumbing to the temptations of money and power, which will be offered by those same groups which are currently manipulating us, with "this exact same" power and money source? Has the "TRUE POWER" in both the U.S. and the entire world much changed from its configuration in the year 1963 and much before? Do the likes of organizations such as "Skull and Bones" and other such power centers really change their overall plans and goals? Do we really believe that there are persons who have the will and fortitude to resist, not only the rewards of power and money, but for them to gamble that they and their loved ones will remain "alive". People are purchased more by fear and threat than with currency! Under the proper amount of fear and inducement, where are those that will not be "bought"? I hate "defeatism".....but I have not been exposed to a game plan that I feel is even a "probable" winner. Are there some things, that in the absence of possible divine intervention, CANNOT be changed... regardless of how positive your attitude might be? Do we really feel that these forces which truly govern all major events can be stopped or diverted? Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Hello Harry "...under trial and error clowns let loose" Absolutely....but what is the solution? Another revolution ? Even if accomplished....what would prevent our new "true patriots" from very shortly succumbing to the temptations of money and power, which will be offered by those same groups which are currently manipulating us, with "this exact same" power and money source? Has the "TRUE POWER" in both the U.S. and the entire world much changed from its configuration in the year 1963 and much before? Do the likes of organizations such as "Skull and Bones" and other such power centers really change their overall plans and goals? Do we really believe that there are persons who have the will and fortitude to resist, not only the rewards of power and money, but for them to gamble that they and their loved ones will remain "alive". People are purchased more by fear and threat than with currency! Under the proper amount of fear and inducement, where are those that will not be "bought"? I hate "defeatism".....but I have not been exposed to a game plan that I feel is even a "probable" winner. Are there some things, that in the absence of possible divine intervention, CANNOT be changed... regardless of how positive your attitude might be? Do we really feel that these forces which truly govern all major events can be stopped or diverted? Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA). These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK and Political Conspiracy sections. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views. Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed. It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate. It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum. For further guidance of expected behaviour see: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) Excellent John! I also thought of recommending Pat Speer who I think would make an excellent moderator but as one the parties to one of the disputes I imagine he would be ineligible based on your guidelines. I thought no one would volunteer for such a thankless task, I’m glad I was wrong. Are the rules of the JFK forum now officially extended to the Political Conspiracies forum too? Perhaps forum wide would be a good idea. You could also pin the rules at the top of the PC forum so no one could claim they were unaware of them. Len Edited February 8, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Hello John I am happy to see that you have been able to choose a panel of moderators, none of which do I feel would be at all objectionable to this forums membership. This is of course your forum, and your right to choose the governing standards is not at all in question. But I, being an American, have a couple of questions that may not immediately come to the mind of those persons who are not. And I am not implying that the laws, jurisprudence and "customs" of any Nation has ANY bearing on the forum rules. The question that I have in mind, and that I have researched but do still not fully understand, pertains to the words "peers" or "peerage". In my country, the word "implies" a general similarity or familiarity. I feel that the more common British useage of "peerage" is most likely the more correct, but can be interpreted quite differently than the general American useage. My other question is somewhat related to peerage, tho from a different angle. It involves representation of the governed. History indicates that this has been a very dividing factor. In the U.S., the thought of "unequal representation" places a major stumbling block in the hearts, minds, and attitudes of "the governed". Once again, congratulations on your selections ! A reply would be much appreciated. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK and Political Conspiracy sections. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views. Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed. Will there be any method of recourse for deletions? I have cause to believe that occasions may arise where just such a line of rational appeal would be in order. For instance, last year much ballyhoo was made, by a few people with a stated agenda to get me removed from the forum, of a logical syllogism I posed based on the inarguable maxim that two contrary statements or facts cannot both be true. Citing evidence arising only in conflicting, mutually exclusive testimony, with no physical evidence that could make a determination of truth or falsity in either case, I said, e.g., to Mr. Caddy: I can see only three possibilities: 1) Hunt lied. 2) You lied. 3) You both lied. Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. To this moment, that stands as a valid logical syllogism, and there still is no answer to who lied in the instant case. As the record shows, I even invited anyone to posit a fourth or further possibility. No one has. Mr. Caddy then posted one of his strident calls for my forum beheading, willfully misrepresenting what I had written to make it falsely appear that I had claimed that all three of the above possibilities were the case, when I had said no such thing. Given that in these controversial topic forums we inevitably are faced with disinformation, and given that falsehoods intended to deceive are the primary tool of disinformationists, I believe that this is a crucial issue. A lie, after all, is: A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood; something intended or serving to convey a false impression; an inaccurate or false statement; to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive; to express what is false; convey a false impression. If we were not confronted with lies, these forums would not be here at all. If we have no means of probing truth or falsity, then these forums may as well not be here at all. The separation of truth from falsity is the only hope of progress available to anyone investing their time in these pursuits. Even though the attempt to sort truth from falsity is a very valid and good-faith purpose and pursuit, it is one that easily can be mischaracterized as ad hominem, when the only thing actually at issue is truth or falsity of crucial pertinent facts, and an honest attempt to identify which conflicting facts (if any) are true or false, and to identify the source or sources of false information. Those most intent on keeping in place a perfect gooey, inseperable mix of indistinguishable truth and falsity always scream the loudest whenever someone, in good faith, attempts to break down this hopeless black tar into its constituent parts and starts to sort fact from fiction—the screams almost always asserting the loft of holy righteousness from which the questioner is condemned and villified. So I feel that while the moderation of willful, petulant, gratuitous ad hominem and personal attack is extremely worthwhile and beneficial to the purpose of the forums, I sincerely hope that you and the moderators will give due and sober thought to how these central and seminal questions of truth or falsity can be effectively addressed, particularly when inviting to the forum, as members, individuals who have played pivotal roles in infamous social and political events, and upon whose uncorroborated testimony and representations many have relied—perhaps to the peril of all. Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 So I blame the British. It was not the United States that came up with the Balfour Declaration, and it was not the United States that let the situation in Palestine develop into a civil war that continues to this day and is the prime cause of what people call "unrest" in the Middle East. It was not the United States that decided to carve up the remains of the Ottoman Empire, stuffing the Kurdish people into an amalgamation with Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs in something called Iraq; and it was not the United States that was responsible for the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Kashmir "problem." The simple fact of the matter is that most of the "world problems" the US has had to deal with for a half century has resulted from inheriting the "problems" left over by previous imperial powers, mostly the British. (In Vietnam it was the French.) But for the most part in this forum evil in the world was born around 1945, and everything's not only been downhill ever since but it's all been the fault of the United States.... I agree. Superpowers are usually responsible for the world's problems. Some of those problems can be dated back to the British in the 19th century. Interestingly, before the Second World War most American right-wingers were isolationists. It was the left who wanted to get involved in stopping the spread of fascism in Europe. In 1945 Winston Churchill realised that the days of the British Empire. The 1945 election result, that removed him from power, showed that the British people were no longer interested in being a superpower. Its main concern was to get a welfare state. Churchill then decided to persuade Harry Truman to take an active role in world affairs. This is reflected in his "Iron Curtain" speech in 1947. The fact that the "enemy" was now communism, appealed to right-wingers in the States, and it was this group that became the interventionists. Of course, it was not only a fear of communism that made them cold war warriors. Having an enemy was good for business. It still is (see my posting on George Bush and the Military Industrial Complex). http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1160 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 last year.... I said, e.g., to Mr. Caddy: I can see only three possibilities: 1) Hunt lied. 2) You lied. 3) You both lied. Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. Ashton Gray Since everyone knows that Howard Hunt was a professional xxxx, you don't need to be a genius to figure out the answer to your own question. Everyone else certainly has. Doug Caddy has a lifetime reputation for honesty. Besides, he is a member of this forum. Last time I looked, forum rules explicitly prohibit calling a fellow member a xxxx. I interpret that to mean calling a member a xxxx directly, or indirectly via innuendo. If I am wrong, and it is permissable to state or imply that a member is lying , perhaps the moderators will confirm that the original rules have been amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) last year.... I said, e.g., to Mr. Caddy: I can see only three possibilities: 1) Hunt lied. 2) You lied. 3) You both lied. Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. Ashton Gray Since everyone knows that Howard Hunt was a professional xxxx, you don't need to be a genius to figure out the answer to your own question. Professional liars don't lie all the time; that's what makes them professionals at their trade: they mix truth with lies in a very deadly potion. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. I hope I've helped you here. Everyone else certainly has.I don't wish to throw you reeling into an emotional crisis, but however shocking this may be to you, just consider it some tough love: you don't speak for "everyone else."Doug Caddy has a lifetime reputation for honesty. Well, he doesn't with me. And frankly, I've never encountered any other single person in all my years of existence so persistently evasive of valid, pertinent questions going to material relevant fact arising from his own record and testimony. Oh, I know: you've already attempted to discredit every single question I've asked Mr. Caddy and demean it out of existence, only part of which zealous industry by you is memorialized in my sig. But just as you are not the spokesperson for "everyone else," you also are not the Final Arbiter of Valid Questions. Besides, he is a member of this forum.Well, there you have the crux of my post: if forum membership automatically exonerates any actor in a controversial socio/political event, and automatically armor plates them from probative questions going to truth or falsity, then what's the point of their being here? So they can be patty-caked only with "questions" they can "answer" with off-handed pointers to a long-existing record that may, itself, be false?I carefully studied the existing questions to and answers from Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin before I asked any questions, and the questions I then asked had not been answered, could not be answered from the existing record, and the majority still have not been answered. Curiously, those unanswered questions go directly to severe conflicts in the record, which both Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin have the means and knowledge to reconcile. They just won't, that's all. Why? Oh, well: only because of the incorrigible and irredeemable personal flaws of the questioner. At least to hear them, and you, tell it. Last time I looked, forum rules explicitly prohibit calling a fellow member a xxxx. I interpret that to mean calling a member a xxxx directly, or indirectly via innuendo. This is the Great Straw Man: asking someone who has unique percipient knowledge relevant questions going to material fact is not calling someone "a xxxx" just because it's clear that there are falsehoods in the record, and questions are being asked about those falsehoods and the source of those falsehoods. In the instant case, all Mr. Caddy had to do is say what you already have claimed as his elected or unelected mouthpiece: "Hunt lied." The question would have been answered. He did not. He would not. And here's another tough love notice to you: you have no standing whatsoever to answer a single question I asked Mr. Caddy. That's why I didn't direct the questions to you. You weren't there. The record in the Watergate forum, though, where I asked Mr. Caddy questions, will demonstrate conclusively to anyone who cares to study it that at all relevant times you continually interfered in the threads, attempted to discredit me, personally, and the questions themselves, and then—even while claiming the questions weren't worth answering—assayed to answer questions for Mr. Caddy that you could not possibly have any first-hand knowledge of the answers to. I have no idea, to this day, why you were so sedulous and indefatigable in your obstructionist tactics to stand between Mr. Caddy and the very pertinent questions I posed to him (still unanswered), but here you are continuing it right here, right now. You seem to have a very close and strong vested interest in making sure that Mr. Caddy is never called on to answer any of those questions, an interest that, to me, seems to go far, far beyond the reasonable interest of a forum member in arriving at truth and relevant facts. Every time the question of the questions to Caddy comes up anywhere, you are there proffering every excuse you can muster for why Mr. Caddy should be exempt from answering pertinent questions—even when his own stated purpose for being here at all is to answer questions. Ashton Gray Edited February 8, 2007 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Ashton, as I recall, you did have some valid questions. You caught Caddy changing his story about who asked him to represent the burglars. At one point he told some reporters it was Barker's wife, and at another point he said it was Hunt. It seemed obvious to me it was Hunt, and that Caddy had lied to reporters to protect his client. Keep in mind he was initially willing to go to jail to protect the identities of his clients. I suspect Caddy would have admitted this deception to us if you hadn't attacked him so. As I recall you accused him of working for the CIA and of lying; you kept saying you were through with him. You basically called him an evil man. To a number of us, this seemed unduly rude. Neither he nor Baldwin were under any obligation to answer your questions. If you'd have asked them politely and sincerely you may have received better answers. Instead, your words and behavior then, as now, seemed designed more to show everyone how brilliant you are, at the expense of the dignity of others. Whether you realize it or not, you came across as a bully. Hopefully, our moderators will discourage such behavior in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) Ashton, as I recall...I suspect Caddy would have admitted... As I recall you accused him... you kept saying... You basically called him.... To a number of us... *PLONK* Ashton Gray Edited February 8, 2007 by Ashton Gray 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