For Terry

[Kathleen Collins]

Terry, no matter what I do, no matter how much you complain, I am still me and you are still you. We see things in different ways. This goes for Bernice as well. The Kennedy Assassination draws me in all the time. I can't shake it.

You don't like my "sensationalism." What you may call sensationalism differs from my meaning of the word. I do not like autopsy photos or x-rays, etc. That's too grisly and to me sensationalistic. How many other members here have done first research? My first research was the Internet. I used it and played some hunches and found not only Donald Norton, but Ralph Geb too. I did not know of Ralph Geb till I looked the name up on the computer. He was involved in setting Harvey Oswald up.

Basically what I'm saying is ignore my posts, since they bother you. You can't change me and I can't change you. I will continue as before.

And please: Don't ever cough up manipulative DellaRosa to me again.

Kathy

[John Dolva]

Kathy: "I will continue as before."

As is your right.

______

Kathleen, your original post was started with:

During Kennedy's presidency, there were many potential scandals that didn't erupt. One that almost did was JFK's first marriage. John Kennedy secretly wed Palm Beach socialite Durie Malcolm in early 1947 before his high-society wedding to Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953. Joe Kennedy was livid about his son's non-Catholic wedding to a twice divorced woman and he had the marriage papers removed from courthouse records. Though close family and friends knew of the wedding, no one has reported knowing of any divorce. Evidently JFK and Malcolm, who would marry twice more, were bigamists. Rumors of his first marriage broke in 1957 and persisted into his presidency. They were finally put to bed when journalist Ben Bradlee, trying to ingratiate himself with the Kennedys, agreed to collaborate with the White House in "debunking" the Durie Malcolm marriage story once and for all. His widely published story repudiated the rumor and exposed the hate groups and gossip columnists who were continuing to spread it.

"there were many potential scandals that didn't erupt."

"One that almost did"

"John Kennedy secretly wed"

"Joe Kennedy was livid ... and he had the marriage papers removed from courthouse records."

"close family and friends knew of the wedding"

"Evidently JFK and Malcolm,...were bigamists."

"Rumors of his first marriage broke in 1957"

"They were finally put to bed when journalist Ben Bradlee, trying to ingratiate himself with the Kennedys, agreed to collaborate with the White House in "debunking" the Durie Malcolm marriage story once and for all."

"trying to ingratiate himself", "agreed to collaborate", " "debunking" "

No matter how you may in follow ups explain what you mean, or what intent there was, this was presented as a loaded statement with no acknowledgement of origin, but a rasonable assumption that these were your views. Only by plowing through a link to a plethora of non-sense can one find that you copied and pasted this from a section of a web site.

This is I think a large part of what I read into the extensive objecting (and objective) responses by Terry and Bernice.

My personal reaction to post #1 was negative, feeling left to wonder what the 'agenda' is.

Either there is an 'agenda', which is naturally rejected, or absent such, a totally different approach could have different results.

Further, no emails or background stuff was received by me, and those who have in the past attempted such wuld know I disapprove of anything like it, and trust my own judgement. Therefore, for me, any call by anyone to automate ignorance is a definite no-no.