> > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote:
> > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > Martin
> > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > under threat of legal action:
> > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > contained inaccurate information
> And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > to point the finger at the agent?
> relating to one of Judyth's former
> > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will be > > pointless.
> > Martin
> > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > you're still here.
> > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote:
> > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > Martin
> > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > under threat of legal action:
> > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > contained inaccurate information
> And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > to point the finger at the agent?
> relating to one of Judyth's former
> > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will be > > pointless.
> > Martin
> > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > you're still here.
One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with an expensive phony lawsuit.
Martin
"Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote:
> > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > Martin
> > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > under threat of legal action:
> > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > contained inaccurate information
> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > to point the finger at the agent?
> relating to one of Judyth's former
> > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will > > be > > pointless.
> > Martin
> > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > you're still here.
> > > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > wrote:
> > > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > > Martin
> > > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > > under threat of legal action:
> > > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > > contained inaccurate information
> > And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > to point the finger at the agent?
> > relating to one of Judyth's former
> > > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will be > > > pointless.
> > > Martin
> > > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > > you're still here.
> > In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie > > post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With > > Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
> > However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964, > > though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
> > OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated:
> > <Quote on> > > The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003
> > «An American hero»
> > At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no > > flaw. Judyth Vary Bake, notwithstanding that own say the last lover of the > > alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. The > > story becomes town lunatic.
> > through René Zwaap
> > [...]
> > JUdyth Vary Bake :
> > {...]
> > «LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy want > > to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself yet > > good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an > > American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist sympathies > > were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties > > could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the > > Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The > > address on the propaganda material for that organization — that directed > > was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations — stood please > > note on the office by Guy Bannister.
On May 24, 8:00 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> Martin
So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
> > > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > wrote:
> > > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > > Martin
> > > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > > under threat of legal action:
> > > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > > contained inaccurate information
> > ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > to point the finger at the agent?
> > relating to one of Judyth's former
> > > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will > > > be > > > pointless.
> > > Martin
> > > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > > you're still here.
> *From Russia With Love*?? Your adherence to Baker's implausible > stories is quite endearing, Martin, though it looks rather naive from > time to time.
> The woman is a liar, Martin. Has she tried selling you the Brooklyn > Bridge yet?
You cite an interesting principle, that once we know that someone lied about one thing we should never believe anything they say. Yet you don't apply that same principle to the WC or to Bugliosi, both known liars.
> Tim Brennan > Sydney, Australia > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> On May 20, 3:54 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> It's good to know that you've never confused films from a series with each >> other.
>> Well I never! Yet ANOTHER hole in Baker's story!
>> LOL, this thing is a complete and utter fiasco...
>> Regards,
>> Tim Brennan >> Sydney, Australia >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>> On May 19, 2:32 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=c9fa75cde238e52c3b65a8c... >>> <QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------- >>> William Kelly >>> Yesterday, 10:58 AM Post #3 >>> I have another problem with Judyth Baker. >>> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie >>> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With >>> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. >>> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964, >>> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime. >>> <QUOTE OFF>---------------------------------------- >>> <QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------- >>> Subject: Judyth's Dutch account -- complete >>> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:53:54 GMT >>> From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) >>> Organization: Marquette University >>> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk >>> Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk >>> OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated: >>> <Quote on> >>> The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003 >>> «An American hero» >>> At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no >>> flaw. Judyth Vary Bake, notwithstanding that own say the last lover of the >>> alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. The >>> story becomes town lunatic. >>> through René Zwaap >>> [...] >>> JUdyth Vary Bake : >>> {...] >>> «LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy want >>> to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself yet >>> good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an >>> American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist sympathies >>> were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties >>> could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the >>> Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The >>> address on the propaganda material for that organization — that directed >>> was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations — stood please >>> note on the office by Guy Bannister. >>> <QUOTE OFF>---------------------------------------- >>> <QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------- >>> From Russia with Love (1963) >>> Overview >>> Director:Terence Young >>> Writers:Ian Fleming (novel) >>> Johanna Harwood (adaptation) >>> more >>> Release Date: 27 May 1964 (USA) >>> <QUOTE OFF>---------------------------------------- >>> Oswald may have READ the orignal "From Russia with Love" novel, >>> however: >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22... >>> Dave- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text -
> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> Martin
DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' & 'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> Martin
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > wrote:
> > > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > > Martin
> > > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > > under threat of legal action:
> > > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > > contained inaccurate information
> > ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > to point the finger at the agent?
> > relating to one of Judyth's former
> > > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will > > > be > > > pointless.
> > > Martin
> > > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > > you're still here.
> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> Martin
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > wrote:
> > > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > > Martin
> > > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > > under threat of legal action:
> > > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > > contained inaccurate information
> > ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > to point the finger at the agent?
> > relating to one of Judyth's former
> > > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say > > > she > > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not > > > "rewrite" > > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I > > > retract > > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author > > > credit," > > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions > > > will > > > be > > > pointless.
> > > Martin
> > > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > > you're still here.
Dave Reitzes wrote: > On May 24, 8:00 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>> Martin
Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't going to do?
>>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would >>> not >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part. >>> Martin >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
>> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
>> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's >> covering for him/her.
>> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
>> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
>>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6-bc45-986a86d7f261@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote: >>>> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Just like a dog with an old bone. >>>>> Martin >>>> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less >>>> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you >>>> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, >>>> under threat of legal action: >>>> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which >>>> contained inaccurate information >>> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has >>> Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first >>> to point the finger at the agent? >>> relating to one of Judyth's former >>>> agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way >>>> misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she >>>> was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" >>>> her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract >>>> it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," >>>> but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. >>>> Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the >>>> manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's >>>> messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I >>>> won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will >>>> be >>>> pointless. >>>> Martin >>>> Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing >>>> you're still here. >>>> JGL
On May 29, 9:06 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dave Reitzes wrote: > > On May 24, 8:00 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote: > >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
> >> Martin
> Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't > going to do?
The only thing he won't answer is who told him the bogus info about Mr Cox.
> >>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would > >>> not > >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part. > >>> Martin > >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
> >> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
> >> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's > >> covering for him/her.
> >> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
> >> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
> >>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message > >>>news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6-bc45-986a86d7f261@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >>> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Just like a dog with an old bone. > >>>>> Martin > >>>> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > >>>> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > >>>> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > >>>> under threat of legal action: > >>>> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > >>>> contained inaccurate information > >>> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > >>> Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > >>> to point the finger at the agent? > >>> relating to one of Judyth's former > >>>> agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > >>>> misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she > >>>> was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" > >>>> her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I retract > >>>> it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," > >>>> but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > >>>> Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > >>>> manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > >>>> messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > >>>> won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will > >>>> be > >>>> pointless. > >>>> Martin > >>>> Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > >>>> you're still here. > >>>> JGL
> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> > Martin > > "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > > > Martin
> > > > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > > > under threat of legal action:
> > > > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > > > contained inaccurate information
> > > ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > > to point the finger at the agent?
> > > relating to one of Judyth's former
> > > > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say > > > > she > > > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not > > > > "rewrite" > > > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I > > > > retract > > > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author > > > > credit," > > > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. > > > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions > > > > will > > > > be > > > > pointless.
> > > > Martin
> > > > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > > > you're still here.
> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> > Martin > > "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > Just like a dog with an old bone.
> > > > > Martin
> > > > Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > > > fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > > > humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > > > under threat of legal action:
> > > > After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post > > > > which > > > > contained inaccurate information
> > > ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > > Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > > to point the finger at the agent?
> > > relating to one of Judyth's former
> > > > agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > > > misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say > > > > she > > > > was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not > > > > "rewrite" > > > > her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I > > > > retract > > > > it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author > > > > credit," > > > > but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract > > > > them. > > > > Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > > > manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no > > > > "agent's > > > > messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, > > > > I > > > > won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions > > > > will > > > > be > > > > pointless.
> > > > Martin
> > > > Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. > > > > Amazing > > > > you're still here.
> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> > Martin
> DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
> PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' & > 'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful > word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being > so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
I spoke to the narrow position of 'believing' or 'disbelieving' a witness rather than weighing and evaluating their statements. I guess that was too complicated for you.
> > I accepted that your explanation was a possible one. I expressed that > > clearly. I didn't say it was a lie.
> > But I also pointed out that it isn't the only possible one. You seem > > unable to even perceive any explanations that involve Judyth lying. > > Whether or not you believe she has, *it's possible*. Until you can see > > that you are not able to make a reasoned judgement about it.
> > Michael
> > "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > The difference is that I accept that memories can be less than accurate, > > > and you folks automatically call every lapse "another Judyth lie."
> > > Martin
> > > "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:4831af0a$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu... > > >> Well, no. Sure, that might be what happened. But to say it "seems > > >> clear" that it did, only if you exclude other explanations. And that's > > >> a > > >> common theme with your approach to Judyth. You have consistently > > >> missed > > >> or avoided alternative explanations.
> > >> In this case, it's also possible that she wanted to add this little > > >> element to her story and she looked up the release date of "From Russia > > >> With Love", found 1963 (because it had been released in Europe then), > > >> and > > >> included it not realizing it hadn't been released in the USA.
> > >> Both explanations are possible.
> > >> Michael
> > >> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >>news:XgaYj.2127$l97.1634@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... > > >>> Even with a decent translation, it would seem clear that she confused > > >>> the > > >>> James Bond film they saw with another she later saw.
> > >>> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie > > >>> post, Judyth claims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With > > >>> Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
> > >>> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April > > >>> 1964, > > >>> though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's > > >>> lifetime.
> > >>> OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated:
> > >>> <Quote on> > > >>> The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003
> > >>> «An American hero»
> > >>> At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no > > >>> flaw. Judyth Vary Bake, notwithstanding that own say the last lover of > > >>> the > > >>> alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. > > >>> The > > >>> story becomes town lunatic.
> > >>> through René Zwaap
> > >>> [...]
> > >>> JUdyth Vary Bake :
> > >>> {...]
> > >>> «LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy > > >>> want > > >>> to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself > > >>> yet > > >>> good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an > > >>> American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist > > >>> sympathies > > >>> were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties > > >>> could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the > > >>> Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The > > >>> address on the propaganda material for that organization - that > > >>> directed > > >>> was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations - stood please > > >>> note on the office by Guy Bannister.
> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with > > an expensive phony lawsuit.
> > Martin
> DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
> PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' & > 'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful > word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being > so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
I spoke to the narrow position of 'believing' or 'disbelieving' a witness rather than weighing and evaluating their statements. I guess that was too complicated for you.
##PS says : Weigh them ??? With scales ?? OK they wiegh 0.05 grams , at least, they do printed on medium wieght paper. Now, ok I will evaluate them. ( Pause) OK I took them to the pawn shop & the guy there told me they had no value whatever. Wouldn't give me a penny. So, having weighed & evaluated, I really don't see that I am better off than before. I still don't know whether what are saying is TRUE or FALSE, Pam . IE I don't know whether these things really happened or if they are just making them up out of thin air. Confidentially, I think you are so wrapped up in your own special brand of gloopy metaphorical nice-speak that you are not even aware yourself that about 98% of your sentences are actually , strictly speaking, meaningless. How can I judge the 'value' of a statement, for eg, WITHOUT KNOWING IF IT'S TRUE OR NOT ???? Obviously, if it's false, it has no value. There, Pam, is the rub, as someone once said. I know you are trying to abolish the whole nasty concept of LYING , but avoiding the word won't do away with the practice anymore than not saying 'spastic' keeps people out of wheelchairs. Shit happens. Covering it with a nice decorative layer of treacle & cream doesn't stop it being ..... basically...... shit, pam. There;s just no other word for it.
Dave Reitzes wrote: > On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
>> Martin
Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't going to do?
>>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue would >>> not >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part. >>> Martin >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
>> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
>> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's >> covering for him/her.
>> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
>> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
>>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6-bc45-986a86d7f261@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote: >>>> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Just like a dog with an old bone. >>>>> Martin >>>> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less >>>> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you >>>> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, >>>> under threat of legal action: >>>> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which >>>> contained inaccurate information >>> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has >>> Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first >>> to point the finger at the agent? >>> relating to one of Judyth's former >>>> agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way >>>> misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say she >>>> was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not "rewrite" >>>> her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I >>>> retract >>>> it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author credit," >>>> but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract them. >>>> Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the >>>> manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's >>>> messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I >>>> won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions will >>>> be >>>> pointless. >>>> Martin >>>> Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing >>>> you're still here. >>>> JGL
> Dave Reitzes wrote: > > On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote: > >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing > >> with > >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
> >> Martin
> Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't > going to do?
The only thing he won't answer is who told him the bogus info about Mr Cox.
> >>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue > >>> would > >>> not > >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part. > >>> Martin > >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
> >> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
> >> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's > >> covering for him/her.
> >> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
> >> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
> >>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message > >>>news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6-bc45-986a86d7f261@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >>> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Just like a dog with an old bone. > >>>>> Martin > >>>> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > >>>> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > >>>> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > >>>> under threat of legal action: > >>>> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > >>>> contained inaccurate information > >>> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > >>> Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > >>> to point the finger at the agent? > >>> relating to one of Judyth's former > >>>> agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > >>>> misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say > >>>> she > >>>> was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not > >>>> "rewrite" > >>>> her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I > >>>> retract > >>>> it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author > >>>> credit," > >>>> but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract > >>>> them. > >>>> Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > >>>> manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > >>>> messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > >>>> won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions > >>>> will > >>>> be > >>>> pointless. > >>>> Martin > >>>> Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > >>>> you're still here. > >>>> JGL
>> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the >> > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with >> > an expensive phony lawsuit.
>> > Martin
>> DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
>> PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' & >> 'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful >> word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being >> so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
>I spoke to the narrow position of 'believing' or 'disbelieving' a >witness rather than weighing and evaluating their statements. I guess >that was too complicated for you.
There's nothing complicated ... for most ... about weighing and evaluating evidence to then be able to come to a conclusion about whether something should or should not believed. That's how it is done, Pamela ... save for those, like you, who glom on to anything that supports your belief and react with knee jerk speed against anything that does not.
>> > One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the >> > information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with >> > an expensive phony lawsuit.
>> > Martin
>> DR says : So you're now saying that your retraction was untruthful?
>> PS says :Dave : Pam has taught us that concepts such as 'truth' & >> 'falsehood' are very unhelpful, here, so, Martin's use of the unhelpful >> word "accurate" is surprising . (I'm surprised that Martin is still being >> so wontonly Contra-Pamelonian about this.)
>I spoke to the narrow position of 'believing' or 'disbelieving' a >witness rather than weighing and evaluating their statements. I guess >that was too complicated for you.
>##PS says : Weigh them ??? With scales ?? OK they wiegh 0.05 grams , at >least, they do printed on medium wieght paper. Now, ok I will evaluate them. >( Pause) OK I took them to the pawn shop & the guy there told me they had no >value whatever. Wouldn't give me a penny. >So, having weighed & evaluated, I really don't see that I am better off than >before. >I still don't know whether what are saying is TRUE or FALSE, Pam . IE I >don't know whether these things really happened or if they are just making >them up out of thin air. >Confidentially, I think you are so wrapped up in your own special brand of >gloopy metaphorical nice-speak that you are not even aware yourself that >about 98% of your sentences are actually , strictly speaking, meaningless.
I love "gloopy." <g>
>How can I judge the 'value' of a statement, for eg, WITHOUT KNOWING IF IT'S >TRUE OR NOT ????
Exactly.
>Obviously, if it's false, it has no value. >There, Pam, is the rub, as someone once said. I know you are trying to >abolish the whole nasty concept of LYING , but avoiding the word won't do >away with the practice anymore than not saying 'spastic' keeps people out of >wheelchairs. Shit happens. Covering it with a nice decorative layer of >treacle & cream doesn't stop it being ..... basically...... shit, pam. >There;s just no other word for it.
On May 30, 11:04 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I said at the time I wouldn't be posting further information on the matter, > and > I haven't. Yet you continue to pretend that I should do exactly that.
You continue to think people believe you, they dont.
> > Dave Reitzes wrote: > > > On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > wrote: > > >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > > >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing > > >> with > > >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
> > >> Martin
> > Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't > > going to do?
> The only thing he won't answer is who told him the bogus info about > Mr Cox.
> > >> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue > > >>> would > > >>> not > > >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part. > > >>> Martin > > >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
> > >> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
> > >> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's > > >> covering for him/her.
> > >> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
> > >> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
> > >>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6-bc45-986a86d7f261@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote: > > >>>> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Just like a dog with an old bone. > > >>>>> Martin > > >>>> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > >>>> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > >>>> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > >>>> under threat of legal action: > > >>>> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post which > > >>>> contained inaccurate information > > >>> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why has > > >>> Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the first > > >>> to point the finger at the agent? > > >>> relating to one of Judyth's former > > >>>> agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > >>>> misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say > > >>>> she > > >>>> was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not > > >>>> "rewrite" > > >>>> her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I > > >>>> retract > > >>>> it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author > > >>>> credit," > > >>>> but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract > > >>>> them. > > >>>> Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing the > > >>>> manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no "agent's > > >>>> messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, I > > >>>> won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions > > >>>> will > > >>>> be > > >>>> pointless. > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. Amazing > > >>>> you're still here. > > >>>> JGL
> I said at the time I wouldn't be posting further information on the > matter, > and > I haven't. Yet you continue to pretend that I should do exactly that.
You continue to think people believe you, they dont.
> > Dave Reitzes wrote: > > > On May 24, 8:00?pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > > wrote: > > >> One other possibility that you are overlooking is that some of the > > >> information was accurate, but it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing > > >> with > > >> an expensive phony lawsuit.
> > >> Martin
> > Isn't this a "further post" on this issue that you said you weren't > > going to do?
> The only thing he won't answer is who told him the bogus info about > Mr Cox.
> > >> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >>> If you read the correction, Steve, you know that I said the issue > > >>> would > > >>> not > > >>> be the topic of any further posts on my part. > > >>> Martin > > >> Well, let's lay out the possibilities:
> > >> 1. Judyth is Martin's source and he's covering for her.
> > >> 2. Some other unreliable individual is Martin's source and he's > > >> covering for him/her.
> > >> 3. Martin made up the Cox allegation out of thin air.
> > >> Am I overlooking any possibilities?
> > >>> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:5af3fa84-3eef-45a6-bc45-986a86d7f261@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On May 21, 7:36 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote: > > >>>> On May 20, 1:55 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Just like a dog with an old bone. > > >>>>> Martin > > >>>> Well, I didn't want to do it -- I do have compassion for the less > > >>>> fortunate . -- but you sorta forced my hand, so here again is you > > >>>> humiliating mea culpa concerning Judyth's ex-agent, posted 2/15/05, > > >>>> under threat of legal action: > > >>>> After some checking of details, I wish to correct a recent post > > >>>> which > > >>>> contained inaccurate information > > >>> ? ?And just who gave Shackelford this inaccurate information? Why > > >>> has > > >>> Martin never come clean on where the rumor started? Who was the > > >>> first > > >>> to point the finger at the agent? > > >>> relating to one of Judyth's former > > >>>> agents, Peter Cox. Mr. Cox has indicated to me that he in no way > > >>>> misrepresented matters to Judyth, thus it would be incorrect to say > > >>>> she > > >>>> was "snookered" by him. He has also indicated that he did not > > >>>> "rewrite" > > >>>> her manuscript. As I am unable to get specifics on this claim, I > > >>>> retract > > >>>> it as well. Howard mentioned Mr. Cox's reference to "co-author > > >>>> credit," > > >>>> but my comments beyond that were speculative only, and I retract > > >>>> them. > > >>>> Judyth's firing of him, therefore, was not due to his re-writing > > >>>> the > > >>>> manuscript, as that didn't occur, and therefore there was no > > >>>> "agent's > > >>>> messed-up version." Due to the confusion relating to these matters, > > >>>> I > > >>>> won't discuss them further on the newsgroup, so followup questions > > >>>> will > > >>>> be > > >>>> pointless. > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> Can't remember ever seeing anything like that on line before. > > >>>> Amazing > > >>>> you're still here. > > >>>> JGL
> In her article published in Europe and translated in a John Gillespie > post,Judythclaims to have seen the James Bond movie From Russia With > Love with Oswald, ostensibly in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
> However, the film did not make its New York USA debute until April 1964, > though it was released in London in October 1963, in Oswald's lifetime.
> OK, I figured out how to get the entire page translated:
> <Quote on> > The Green citizen of amsterdam | 21 June 2003
> «An American hero»
> At theories over the murder of president Kennedy is for forty years no > flaw.JudythVary Bake, notwithstanding that own say the last lover of the > alleged murderer Borrow Harvey Oswald, joins for that now the her at. The > story becomes town lunatic.
> through René Zwaap
> [...]
> JUdythVary Bake :
> {...]
> «LEe never was a spy, and has also something differently than a spy want > to be. Its favorite films were James Federation-films. I remind myself yet > good that we together From Russia With Praise saw. He not felt self an > American James Federation, and wrongly. Are so-called communist sympathies > were all fabrications, a façade behind which he be undercoveroperaties > could export. As directed he in New Orleans the local division of the > Committee Fair Play for Cuba on, of which he the only member was. The > address on the propaganda material for that organization — that directed > was on the normaliseren of the American-Cuban relations — stood please > note on the office by Guy Bannister.
> Judyth and Lee looked forward to seeing From Russia With Love. They saw > Dr No together. The Dutch translation was incorrect.
Wow. The dutch translation was by a robot wasn't it ? One of those 'online' things ? And it translated From Russia With Love as Dr No ?? That's one hell of a machine they got there.
