The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[Colin Crow]

And it's just exactly what many "CTers" do as well.

That's a childish "the other guy does it, so I am allowed to do it" argument that just doesn't convince.

Happens every day

Does it? I have never seen a site like that. Can you provide a link to such a site?

I have to admit that I do not read your site and haven't done so for some time. This is because the first time I ended up on your site somewhat by accident, I noticed that you had used one of my postings (that was part of a back and forth discussion) on this forum and you added your own reply, which I totally disagreed with and felt was a completely unfair misrepresentation of what my actual point was. When I looked if I could reply I found I couldn't and that for me was enough to ignore your site ever since. If you wanted to engage my comments in a proper discussion, you could have done so on this forum, but you did not do so and I can only conclude that was for a self serving purpose.

Want to talk about free speech? Give those to who you reply with ridicule and misrepresenation on your own site the possibility to do so!

Martin from my original post in this thread a few days ago......

"As  someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?

I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all."

It is his site....there is some trash some gold nuggets and iron pyrite and in whatever category the material falls depends on your perspective.

[John Mytton]

One trick pony at work….

C'mon John, you can do far better that this…..

Btw, who decided that I am a CT? Or does one automatically become a CT when one doesn't agree with LNs and their highly questionable arguments?

One trick pony at work….

Nice, start with a weak insult and let's see where we go from there?

C'mon John, you can do far better that this…..

Of course I can but I have to carefully consider what you can comprehend in any one post.

Btw, who decided that I am a CT?

I don't care what you think you are!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

But you're never going to get angry at a CTer who is doing it, right? (Of course I'm right.)


Got a link to it so I can check it out?

Why do you think it was a discussion that didn't occur originally at THIS forum? Because if it was a discussion that originated at THIS forum, then my reply that appears on my blog is very likely IDENTICAL to the reply I gave you on THIS forum too.


Oh, you mean the way Pat Speer does on his website (where no one can reply to his criticisms and/or ridicule either)?

And the constant "misrepresentation" whine from CTers is getting tiresome. That's a false accusation, IMO.

But you're never going to get angry at a CTer who is doing it, right? (Of course I'm right.)

Actually, you are completely wrong. I don't care if it is a LN or a CT who is doing that, it's simply wrong.


Why do you think it was a discussion that didn't occur originally at THIS forum? Because if it was a discussion that originated at THIS forum, then my reply that appears on my blog is very likely IDENTICAL to the reply I gave you on THIS forum too.

Nice diversion followed by a lie.... How do I know it was a discussion on this forum? The answer is simple; it's the only forum I am (and ever have been) active on. You will find me on no other forum, but feel free to do a search to prove me wrong! And no, there was no reply from you to my post on this forum. I'ts been a while since it happened and I can't even recall the discussion, but I do remember clearly that you only replied to my comments on your own site. That's what pissed me off...

Oh, you mean the way Pat Speer does on his website (where no one can reply to his criticisms and/or ridicule either)?

The JFK assassination is a subject if interest to me, it's not my life. I have other things to do than deal with this case 24/7. I also like to form my own opinions, so all I have read is the WC report and a massive number of files from the National Archives. I haven't read a single CT or LN book, nor do I have any interests in propaganda sites which promote one opinion or another. I don't think I have even visited Pat Speer's website.

And the constant "misrepresentation" whine from CTers is getting tiresome. That's a false accusation, IMO.

Of course that's a given, but your opinion doesn't make the actual misrepresentation less true. I don't claim to be a CT nor do I wish to be a LN. I just want to form my own opinion about what actually happened on 22/11/63.

Now that your personal attacks on me are going nowhere, care to try again with some honest discussion?

[Martin Weidmann]

Nice, start with a weak insult and let's see where we go from there?

Of course I can but I have to carefully consider what you can comprehend in any one post.

I don't care what you think you are!

JohnM

Nice, start with a weak insult and let's see where we go from there?

Touchy…. it's a normal expression, big deal

Of course I can but I have to carefully consider what you can comprehend in any one post.

What was that again what you said about insults?

I don't care what you think you are!

Nobody asked what you care about...... but it's pretty obvious you have great difficulty answer a simple question honestly.... 

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin from my original post in this thread a few days ago......

"As  someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?

I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all."

It is his site....there is some trash some gold nuggets and iron pyrite and in whatever category the material falls depends on your perspective.

I share your sentiment, Colin.

Sure, David can do on his site what he wants, but when he does not engage in the actual conversation on this forum and than uses one of my posts to attack and ridicule on his own site, where I have no way to reply, he's pushing it IMO

[Colin Crow]

No need to. It's already been hashed out (probably multiple times) in my Part 914.

It's the usual "Everybody Is A Liar Except Lee Oswald" situation. I've seen it dozens of times. (Just ask DiEugenio. He's got more liars than the current White House staff employs. IOW, the more liars, the better.)

Refreshing to see some diversity from the LN's at long last......

"you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?"

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391

Seems JohnM agrees with me that Williams and the others lied. If you like I can get some quotes from other LN's that agree that Jarman and Norman lied too.

[David Von Pein]

Now that your personal attacks on me are going nowhere,...

And what "personal attacks" would those be?

...care to try again with some honest discussion?

What would you like to know?