Virginia Tech Spree Killer

[Charles Black]

Unless John Simkin is trying to tell all Americans, in his higly cultured fashion, that he does not want our participation on HIS forum, his comments regarding Americans, as this forum's leader, are far above my comprehension.

It absolutely amazes me to see the depths to which this forum leader is willing to burrough, in order for some reason, that I can't comprehend, to slander Americans. He has appointed moderators, presumably as an attempt to keep slurs between members to a minimum, but he himself has become the prime antagonist that participates here. What is even worse, it should be obvious to even the non American members of this forum, that this is not a mistake, but a deliberate and calculated action on his part.

While hurling slurs toward American members in many prior posts, he has not failed to very explicitly remind them that this is his forum, and that he has the power to ban those who might protest. This constant flow of slurs are very obviously meant to provoke even the "meekest" American members, though of these, he remains assured, most will not raise their voices.

I feel that this form of behavior is bound to, given enough time, be self destructive of this forum.

John seems to think that his personal mental removal of himself from his governments policies, sets him apart and absolved of possible British political complacency and wrongdoing. He is able thru the enlightenment which hindsight bestows, criticize all that this hindsight allows him.

He fails to acknowledge the "hint", that without Tony Blairs approval, the Bush misadministration, may very well not have taken their course in the light of the entire world's protest.

I am referring at present to Simkins post #104. His subsequent post #106 may be an hidden acknowledgement that he had travelled far beond the realms of common couteousy, expected by all societies. John has never realized that a theoretically inherited measure of culture, unfortunately does not also bestow CLASS !

I would imagine, if a stronger action is not taken, that it will be John's natural inclination to ask me if I am so dissatisfied with him, why do I remain on this forum ? The answer is obviously simple. I remain because I respect the ideas and thought processes of many on this forum. It is not the "forum" which I would like to place behind me.

I also remain to represent those more timid countrymen of mine, whose "apathy" has allowed some of the wrongs which you, I, and the entire world know are criminally illegal, and to remind them to get off of their privileged fat asses and stand up for something for a change.

Of course I and most of the sane world condemn my countries present actions.....but that does not mean that I wish to abandon my status as an American....as this post should probably indicate !

If John were anyone other than John, I don't doubt that there would be a call for the moderation of his statements "by this forum's moderators". This forum, of course was never intended to be a representative democracy, nor should it necessarily be so. No one can be impeached or really even challenged in a meaningful way. I realize that my

protestations alone will change nothing. But I could not remain here with any degree of self respect, were I to allow myself, my countrymen, and my country, to be trodden on.

Without self respect, I would not care to live !

I would suggest to some of you who have not done so; to read this entire thread at one sitting. I feel that there is a great deal more in it than one can grasp by merely wandering in and out.

You may conclude that there are some gigantic variances in thought and beliefs.....but this is what a forum is supposed to be. But it cannot be allowed to be dominated by the decisions of only one.....Regardless of their hierarchial position !

Charles Black

[Guest]

Unless John Simkin is trying to tell all Americans, in his higly cultured fashion, that he does not want our participation on HIS forum, his comments regarding Americans, as this forum's leader, are far above my comprehension.

It absolutely amazes me to see the depths to which this forum leader is willing to burrough, in order for some reason, that I can't comprehend, to slander Americans. He has appointed moderators, presumably as an attempt to keep slurs between members to a minimum, but he himself has become the prime antagonist that participates here. What is even worse, it should be obvious to even the non American members of this forum, that this is not a mistake, but a deliberate and calculated action on his part.

While hurling slurs toward American members in many prior posts, he has not failed to very explicitly remind them that this is his forum, and that he has the power to ban those who might protest. This constant flow of slurs are very obviously meant to provoke even the "meekest" American members, though of these, he remains assured, most will not raise their voices.

I feel that this form of behavior is bound to, given enough time, be self destructive of this forum.

John seems to think that his personal mental removal of himself from his governments policies, sets him apart and absolved of possible British political complacency and wrongdoing. He is able thru the enlightenment which hindsight bestows, criticize all that this hindsight allows him.

He fails to acknowledge the "hint", that without Tony Blairs approval, the Bush misadministration, may very well not have taken their course in the light of the entire world's protest.

I am referring at present to Simkins post #104. His subsequent post #106 may be an hidden acknowledgement that he had travelled far beond the realms of common couteousy, expected by all societies. John has never realized that a theoretically inherited measure of culture, unfortunately does not also bestow CLASS !

I would imagine, if a stronger action is not taken, that it will be John's natural inclination to ask me if I am so dissatisfied with him, why do I remain on this forum ? The answer is obviously simple. I remain because I respect the ideas and thought processes of many on this forum. It is not the "forum" which I would like to place behind me.

I also remain to represent those more timid countrymen of mine, whose "apathy" has allowed some of the wrongs which you, I, and the entire world know are criminally illegal, and to remind them to get off of their privileged fat asses and stand up for something for a change.

Of course I and most of the sane world condemn my countries present actions.....but that does not mean that I wish to abandon my status as an American....as this post should probably indicate !

If John were anyone other than John, I don't doubt that there would be a call for the moderation of his statements "by this forum's moderators". This forum, of course was never intended to be a representative democracy, nor should it necessarily be so. No one can be impeached or really even challenged in a meaningful way. I realize that my

protestations alone will change nothing. But I could not remain here with any degree of self respect, were I to allow myself, my countrymen, and my country, to be trodden on.

Without self respect, I would not care to live !

I would suggest to some of you who have not done so; to read this entire thread at one sitting. I feel that there is a great deal more in it than one can grasp by merely wandering in and out.

You may conclude that there are some gigantic variances in thought and beliefs.....but this is what a forum is supposed to be. But it cannot be allowed to be dominated by the decisions of only one.....Regardless of their hierarchial position !

Charles Black

Once again I am left bewildered in the extreme by a Charles Black posting. Charles, these are really odd accusations you are making against John and in my view they are accusations without rational foundation.

You seem to want to believe that the management of this forum has some deeply anti American agenda. I would contend that you would struggle to find any evidence of this beyound what is clearly deeply within your own rather fertile imagination.

I have not been an active participant in this thread but I have cast more than a cursory glance now and again. I would like to add that I believe it is utter insanity for a civilised nation to permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth... especially given the deep social cleavages existing within that society that Charles himself identifies earlier in this thread. If this is being "anit American" then I guess I am guilty too?

This forum is not dominated by "the decisions of one". It is childish and innaccurate to claim that it is.

[Tom Kutzer]

When the Roman Empire was in decline the ruling elite feared revolution. It was eventually agreed that the best way of avoiding this was to provide "bread and circuses". This involved daily handouts of bread to stop them from starving. Free “games” were provided to take their minds off their economic problems. This included slaves having dangerous chariot races and feeding political prisoners to wild animals. Not so different from modern America.

gee....exaggerate much?

where was most of the UK when Man.U. was putting it on Milan AC the other night?

uh-huh.

[Guest]

When the Roman Empire was in decline the ruling elite feared revolution. It was eventually agreed that the best way of avoiding this was to provide "bread and circuses". This involved daily handouts of bread to stop them from starving. Free “games” were provided to take their minds off their economic problems. This included slaves having dangerous chariot races and feeding political prisoners to wild animals. Not so different from modern America.

gee....exaggerate much?

uh-huh.

Do you not think that it is quite a pertinent analogy then?

[Tom Kutzer]

When the Roman Empire was in decline the ruling elite feared revolution. It was eventually agreed that the best way of avoiding this was to provide "bread and circuses". This involved daily handouts of bread to stop them from starving. Free “games” were provided to take their minds off their economic problems. This included slaves having dangerous chariot races and feeding political prisoners to wild animals. Not so different from modern America.

gee....exaggerate much?

uh-huh.

Do you not think that it is quite a pertinent analogy then?

not unless you're using a quite broad brush.

so , no, I don't think it's very pertinent....or at least as much as some.

I also think you should make sure your own Rolladens are in working order before you go casting stones.

btw, I enjoyed my stay in London/Camberley very much....

btw, pt. 2....I'm disapointed in the SCW section...I thought there would be much more discussion, there....obviously, it isn't the hosts fault....*sigh*

[William Kelly]

[quote

I could say some equally demeaning but true generalities about the English, but I have a few British friends that don't exhibit such traits, so I won't insult an entire nation because of the behavior and attitudes of most of them.

BK

It is also true of the UK. It was just a comment about the way the mass media persuades people not to address political issues. As one writer once pointed out, if someone cannot express their anger about the situation they find themselves in, they retreat into apathy.

Or they kill everyone around them.

Why are there only so few choices?

BK

[John Dolva]

'William Kelly' post='100832' date='Apr 26 2007, 01:56 AM']

[quote

I could say some equally demeaning but true generalities about the English, but I have a few British friends that don't exhibit such traits, so I won't insult an entire nation because of the behavior and attitudes of most of them.

BK

It is also true of the UK. It was just a comment about the way the mass media persuades people not to address political issues. As one writer once pointed out, if someone cannot express their anger about the situation they find themselves in, they retreat into apathy.

Or they kill everyone around them.

Why are there only so few choices?

BK

Is the answer something to do with a lack of appropriate Supreme Court rulings on provision of alternatives?

As far as I understand, the USofA has certain conditions that don't exist in many other countries. What I particularly refer to is the relationships between the states and the federal government, where the federal governement traditionally or by law cannot dictate policy.

I understand that Supreme Court rulings can on the other hand be a bridge.

Also Law enforcement is in a sense is 'fractured' by jurisdictional considerations. For example in 'Trace evidence-the hunt for an elusive serial killer' by Bruce Henderson, highlights that the hindrances of the etsablished means of sharing of data across juristictional lines permitted a killer to operate undetected for many years.

Another problem in that instance seems to have been the various Law Enforcement bodies in the various areas involved had different ways of funding the hunt for the killer. Thus manpower was always an unequal problem depending on budgetary considerations.

SO: evidence lay on shelves, in files, in locked evidence rooms etc. and was not shared, where in the final analysis, IF these divisions had not been there the killer would have been caught much earlier and lives saved.

How much is this a factor? Is it a matter complicated by various applications of constitutional rights?

---------------

I am in communication (On IRC Christian Channel) with a family head in Georgia that seem to suffer from Child Court issues, that she says could be solved by moving to another state. IOW there seems to be a situation that relief or welfare does exist unequally across states. Kennedy deferred to Supreme Court rulings in his fight for national Civil Rights.

Where, if it's true that it exists, does the origin, today, of hindrances for a national approach, to what in some states seem to be positive solutions, with regards to provision of alternatives to possibly disturbed persons, lie?

While Pat's suggestion of access to say joining a Metal Band, ie musical expression, may seem whimsical, I think it's thinking in the right direction.

Edited April 26, 2007 by John Dolva

[Guest Stephen Turner]

May I respectfully suggest that we now allow this thread to die? It is, to say the least, ephemeral to this section of the Forum.

A thread on the psychology of spree/serial/mass killers may be of educational benefit. As would a discussion, along non sectarian lines about America's gun laws. But not on the JFK threads..Steve.

[Charles Black]

Hello Andy Walker

I have nothing more to add regarding John's slurs, as they are a matter of record. Nothing to say until the next one is posted, in his effort to bring moderation to the forum.

I would like to clarify however, your very loose and liberal personal interpretation which you have ascribed to U.S. laws.

Andy you stated "I would like to add that I believe it is utter insanity for a civilised nation to permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth...".

Andy your painting of American society and its laws seems to be the result of your watching too many "old cowboy movies", and actually "no understanding of the existing laws".

No one is allowed by law to "walk around armed to the teeth"! A "very few" are allowed, only after some very vigorous FBI background investigations, which are quite time consuming and expensive, a photo ID license, much resembling an American driver's licence, to carry a concealed weapon....even so, there are restictions which do not allow them to be carried into bars and various public buildings.

Since I somehow feel that you already knew this, I personally feel that you are attepting to paint a "quite false" image of American Law and the society which it was meant to serve.

Those persons who are so licensed, are quite solid citizens. These licences must be up dated every few years so they remain, as much as is reasonably possible, up to date. Former felons as well as the cognitively or emotionally impaired are not licensed.

The Virginia Tech killer was not licenced ! However he did manage, thru beaucratic error, to slip by the strict qualifications to purchase handguns.

So it should be realized by all that the U.S. is a nation that does not ".....permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth" !

As a matter of fact one can assume that anyone posessing a U.S. concealed weapons permit, is not one of the "all and sundry", but rather, a well regarded citizen.

The problem which does exist, is that the "criminal element" posesses a great many handguns with erased serial numbers which they themselves never purchased "new" or "legally".

So what you are realy in effect proposing is that the solid citizens who have passed rigorous FBI checks be disarmed, all the while knowing that the criminals and mentally deranged cannot be disarmed.

I feel this is what you refer to when you state, "Ifeel that it is utter insanity for a civilised nation to permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth".

The only "insanity" which I perceive would be for mentally cognizant American citizens to voluntarily place themselves at such a ridiculous disadvantage, and at the mercy of the felonous and misguided. As I have stated numerous times on this forum, "a reasonable and sane individual does not particpate in what he knows to be a gunfight if armed only with a knife".

The U.S. is certainly no Utopia, nor are its citizens so misguided to believe that it is; regardless of our cultural shortcomings !

I don't see how your argument is anything but an attempted furtherance of the false propaganda so often used by the anti gun lobbyists.

The U.S. has admittedly by most American opinion, some very serious social problems. They need not be falsely magnified and imaged.

Andy since I really felt that you already knew all that I have posted, I thought that I would attempt to set the record straight, for those that seem to harbor the misgivings which you were so eager to magnify.

Andy, in regard to what you claim to be my misguided posts.....is this one concise enough?

Charles Black

Charles Black

Edited April 26, 2007 by Charles Black

[David G. Healy]

May I respectfully suggest that we now allow this thread to die? It is, to say the least, ephemeral to this section of the Forum.

A thread on the psychology of spree/serial/mass killers may be of educational benefit. As would a discussion, along non sectarian lines about America's gun laws. But not on the JFK threads..Steve.

Steve,

Take a look at the title how many views this thread has! So, let it die? Looks like its just warming up!

[Charles Black]

Hello Stephen

I in no way understand the meaning behind your response. I stated that I know that a great many U.S. residents, as they have traced the rise in violence, feel that it is most directly related to the aftermath of the JFK assassination. What leads you to believe otherwise ?

What do you thnk that you know about America that we Amercans don't ? Please fill us in !

Perhaps you have consulted the Oracle at Delphi ?

Charles Black

Charles Black

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hello Stephen

I in no way understand the meaning behind your response. I stated that I know that a great many U.S. residents, as they have traced the rise in violence, feel that it is most directly related to the aftermath of the JFK assassination. What leads you to believe otherwise ?

What do you thnk that you know about America that we Amercans don't ? Please fill us in !

Perhaps you have consulted the Oracle at Delphi ?

Charles Black

Charles Black

Charles. It seems I have a talent to incur your ire every time I post.

I made the suggestion I did as it seemed to me that the thread had degenerated into pointless name calling, and was wrongly situated in the JFK section. if you disagree with my assessment then good for you, ignore me. As for your question about what I know about America that Americans dont know I am at a loss, where have I ever stated this? Where have I EVER made ANY anti American comments? please enlighten me. Oh BTW the sybil was out last time I called.

[Charles Black]

Hello Stephen

Please indicate to me the "ire" in my posts. Perhaps I should consult Webster on "ire".

What "name calling" have I engaged in?

How did you decide that this thread was in the wrong section. Based on the responses, this thread was in absolutely the correct section.

Do you really feel that this is a political debate?

To me this smells of censorship? Doesn't it to you?

Charles Black

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hello Stephen

Please indicate to me the "ire" in my posts. Perhaps I should consult Webster on "ire".

What "name calling" have I engaged in?

How did you decide that this thread was in the wrong section. Based on the responses, this thread was in absolutely the correct section.

Do you really feel that this is a political debate?

To me this smells of censorship? Doesn't it to you?

Charles Black

IRE, Definition, "A feeling that is orientated towards some real, OR SUPPOSED grievance.

Previously in this thread you falsely accused me of something which you later had to appologise for, you then had the nerve to ask "What educational service spawned you" and "would they admit to it" sure sounds like name calling to me. No Charles, I think Ire is spot on.

Now please answer my question, Where have I ever stated that I know more about America than Americans, and if you cant I expect you to be Gentleman enough to appologise for your false assertion.

Regards, Steve.

And no, I dont think it "smells like censorship" And further, it was not me who moved this thread, another assumption on your part.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[John Simkin]

Where have I EVER made ANY anti American comments? please enlighten me.

You criticised aspects of American society. According to Charles that makes you anti-American.