New "Reclaiming History" Newsgroup
David Von Pein
NEW "GOOGLE GROUPS" WEBSITE........
======================================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
======================================================
Jas
James
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3badf635-8bd1-4eac...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
Is this really necessary?
Dave
David Von Pein
>>> "David, Is this really necessary?" <<<
Why are you asking me this question, Dave?
David Von Pein
>>> "Cool, thanks Dave." <<<
Thank you, James.
I'm going to be uploading many assassination-related photographs to
that "RH" Google Groups site too, which can be accessed by clicking
the "Files" link on the right-hand side of any page on the site.
David Von Pein
REPRISE:
>>> "David, Is this really necessary?" <<<
Well, of course it's not really "necessary". None of these silly JFK-
related forums is really "necessary". It's all a huge waste of time and
energy, as we all know, because nobody is changing anybody's mind about
the John F. Kennedy assassination one way or the other.
I've never, ever ONCE heard somebody say this as a result of reading any
LNer's comments on the various newsgroups/forums: "You know what, that guy
makes a lot of sense; I was wrong; I now think Oswald acted alone."
Has that ever happened to anybody here? If so, I've yet to hear about it.
It certainly hasn't happened to me. And I KNOW I make a lot of "sense".
<wink>
So, as I said, these forums are purely for FYI and entertainment and
opponent-bashing purposes only....as is quite obvious by reading pretty
much anything written in the newsgroups.
Having spouted the above forthright rant, I will also say that I'd like to
think that a few of my LN-favoring posts, reviews, and assorted articles
have met with some degree of approval and favorable head-nodding over the
years....although certainly not by any members of the entrenched
"Conspiracy" crowd (naturally).
And since Google allows people to start up these "Newsgroups" for free and
with very little effort, I decided to start one up devoted exclusively to
Vince Bugliosi's "Book For The Ages" ["Reclaiming History"].
I'm not allowing anybody else to post anything at all to the RH site,
however, because I don't want it ruined by a bunch of meaningless
"Bugliosi's nothing but a liar" crap from CTers (which would, of course,
inevitably happen over the course of time).
If that's called "censorship", so be it. Then I'm a censor. But since
Google gives the group's "owner" a right to decide who can post and who
can't, I'm going to take advantage of those options and "ownership"
rights.
So, is my "RH" Google site "necessary"? Hell, no. Of course it isn't. But
I don't care. I like it anyway. :)
Maybe next month I'll start up a new NG called: "The Wonders Of Watching
Grass Grow".
That site won't be the slightest bit "necessary" either; and it'll
probably attract about the same number of visitors as my new "RH" site
(anywhere from 0 to 2 per month). <Cheshire grin>
James K. Olmstead
research connected to the book or the case.
jko
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bed7e279-0f88-4f93...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
thali...@hotmail.com
The CTers are getting to you obviously. You want to deal with people
who suffer the same delusions. Fair enough.
thali...@hotmail.com
> >>> "David, Is this really necessary?" <<<
>
> Why are you asking me this question, Dave?
Listening to you two, I feel like I am watching the movie 2001: A
Space Odyessy. Dave!
Dave Reitzes
> >>> "David, Is this really necessary?" <<<
>
> Why are you asking me this question, Dave?
It seems strange to start a discussion group where no discussion is
permitted. If you want to archive your posts, why not register a domain
name and start your own website? Your work will have more visibility, and
you can get a basic hosting plan for six dollars a month. Check out:
HTML coding is easy. I started my website on a whim and had my first few
pages up in a day or two.
Dave
Jas
I disagree. David is simply wanting to post assassination-related material
without the interference of random posting, and without the possible
sidetracking that arises from it at times, in a sort of "bi-partisan" or
"non-partisan" manner. I think it's a good idea. There are plenty of these
Kennedy forums in existence where people can post their points of view
from both sides of the fence.
James
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4831b044$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Von Pein
>>> "It seems strange to start a discussion group where no discussion is permitted." <<<
But I never intended for my "RH" site to be a "Discussion" group.
Hence, the definition "Announcement Only" being put into the
description of the group by Google.
It's more-or-less a "Bulletin Board" for "Reclaiming History". And
that's just exactly what I wanted, without having to put up with any
of the "Bugliosi is a WC shill" nonsense that always occurs when the
topic of VB's book surfaces on the open discussion forums.
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/topics
>>> "If you want to archive your posts, why not register a domain name and start your own website?" <<<
I've already done that (for free), at www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com.
Yes, that's only a "blog", but most blogs can really be deemed
"websites" all their own too. In fact, I took note of this "Blog"
definition in Wikipedia (although Wiki can be wrong many times about
certain things, but I continue to be amazed by the sheer scope of
material that is searchable at the Wikipedia site):
"A blog (an abridgment of the term 'web log') is a website,
usually maintained by an individual, with regular entries of
commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics
or video."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog
>>> "Your work will have more visibility, and you can get a basic hosting plan for six dollars a month." <<<
Thanks for the link, Dave. But the free blog set-up works just fine
for my JFK purposes.
>>> "HTML coding is easy. I started my website on a whim and had my first few pages up in a day or two." <<<
Yes, I've gotten pretty good at HTML coding too. I always edit my blog
using only HTML mode; it's easier that way, once you get accustomed to
what you're doing. Although it's no doubt quite intimidating to
someone who has never edited or written something directly using HTML.
It confused the heck out of me for a while (and sometimes still does).
Plus, Blogger.com has a mind of its own on occasion too, which always
elicits a few cries of agony and anguish. ;)
David Von Pein
>>> "I disagree. David is simply wanting to post assassination-related material without the interference of random posting, and without the possible sidetracking that arises from it at times..." <<<
Exactly.
>>> "I think it's a good idea." <<<
I don't know how good of an idea it is....but I like it anyhow. The
idea just popped into my head all of a sudden, for no apparent reason
at all. (You don't think Vince is using mental telepathy on me, do
you?) ;)
And then I realized how extremely easy it is to start up your own
newsgroup at Google. And Google's nice little tutorial video helped
too.
http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/files
David Von Pein
>>> "The CTers are getting to you obviously." <<<
Why in the world would you say this?
The CTers get funnier with each passing year. (Brian David Andersen
immediately comes to mind.)
>>> "You want to deal with people who suffer the same delusions. Fair enough." <<<
Untrue (of course)...because no LNer is allowed to post at the "RH" NG
either. So I'm not "deal[ing] with people" at all. Period.
======================================
"[DVP's RH site is a] Classic propaganda site." -- Gil Jesus;
05/19/08
======================================
I only created the RH site 24 hours earlier, and it's already been
touted as "Classic".
Thanks, Gil. :)
James K. Olmstead
maybe that will stop.
jko
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message news:48323d34$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Jas
Quite the contrary, I hope he'll step up his anti-conspiracy assault with
his site.
I love it when Bugliosi's book brings out the sour grapes in
conspiracists-- it's so telling that the man has dealt a death blow to the
Kennedy conspiracy movement, whether they want to admit it or not.
James
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4832d127$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
James K. Olmstead
objection of VB's supporter's to address forensic issues relating to VB's book.
VB does an excellent job on the "wacco conspiracy" supporters....but does
not address key forensic evidence that has not been contested and even
the FBI refuses to address.
If you create a newsgroup that's one thing....but all he did was used the newsgroup
formate for a simple webpage.....there is no exchange between interested parties.
It's false adversting using a newsgroup formate that does not allow you to comment.
I can read his work here and not respond to it.....why do I need to know about
another site where I can't respond even if I wanted to?
jko
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message news:48337eb0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
thali...@hotmail.com
> James K. O. said: "Glad you like the idea.....he posts the material and
> reposts it here, maybe that will stop."
>
> Quite the contrary, I hope he'll step up his anti-conspiracy assault with
> his site.
>
> I love it when Bugliosi's book brings out the sour grapes in
> conspiracists-- it's so telling that the man has dealt a death blow to the
> Kennedy conspiracy movement, whether they want to admit it or not.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> > Glad you like the idea.....he posts the material and reposts it here,
> > maybe that will stop.
>
> > jko
>
> >news:48323d34$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> James O. wrote: "Any newsgroup which you can't post to has little value
> >> in the exchange of ideas and research connected to the book or the case."
>
> >> I disagree. David is simply wanting to post assassination-related
> >> material without the interference of random posting, and without the
> >> possible sidetracking that arises from it at times, in a sort of
> >> "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan" manner. I think it's a good idea. There
> >> are plenty of these Kennedy forums in existence where people can post
> >> their points of view from both sides of the fence.
>
> >> James
>
> >>news:4831b044$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>> Any newsgroup which you can't post to has little value in the exchange
> >>> of ideas and
> >>> research connected to the book or the case.
>
> >>> jko
>
> >>>news:bed7e279-0f88-4f93...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On May 18, 12:00?pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> NEW "GOOGLE GROUPS" WEBSITE........
>
> >>>>> ======================================================
>
> >>>>> "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":
>
> >>>>>www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
>
> >>>>> ======================================================
>
> >>>> David,
>
> >>>> Is this really necessary?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Bugliosi is the new Lone Nut Theorists hero. What happened to the
old saviour, Posner?
Anthony Marsh
> James K. O. said: "Glad you like the idea.....he posts the material and
> reposts it here, maybe that will stop."
>
> Quite the contrary, I hope he'll step up his anti-conspiracy assault
> with his site.
>
> I love it when Bugliosi's book brings out the sour grapes in
> conspiracists-- it's so telling that the man has dealt a death blow to
> the Kennedy conspiracy movement, whether they want to admit it or not.
>
Nice to see you defending his lies.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "It seems strange to start a discussion group where no discussion is
permitted." <<<
>
> But I never intended for my "RH" site to be a "Discussion" group.
> Hence, the definition "Announcement Only" being put into the
> description of the group by Google.
>
> It's more-or-less a "Bulletin Board" for "Reclaiming History". And
> that's just exactly what I wanted, without having to put up with any
> of the "Bugliosi is a WC shill" nonsense that always occurs when the
> topic of VB's book surfaces on the open discussion forums.
>
>
In other words, you spit on Freedom of Speech. Why do I not find that
surprising for a WC defender?
David Von Pein
>>> "It's false adversting using a newsgroup [format] that does not allow
you to comment." <<<
Bull.
Then why does "Google Groups" even PERMIT an "owner/manager" of a start-up
NG to cut off any (or all) posts from other people in the first place? All
I did was exercise my rightful options offered up by the top dogs
themselves (Google).
Since Google itself allows "owners" to switch off the ability for people
to post messages, it's silly to say that an "Announcement Only" newsgroup
is "false advertising".
David Von Pein
>>> "In other words, you spit on Freedom of Speech. Why do I not find that
surprising for a WC defender?" <<<
Here's a challenge for you, Tony ---
Go to CT-leaning website operators like Debra Conway, John Simkin, and
Rich DellaRosa and say those very same words to them --- "You spit on
Freedom of Speech".
Since July 28, 2005, I've been banned from all of the supposedly open-
minded John F. Kennedy forums that are owned and/or operated by the three
above-named individuals (and for three supposedly different reasons too).
But we all know the REAL reason for those three expulsions....don't we
Tony?
You'll never in a million years get Ms. Conway, Mr. Simkin, and Mr.
DellaRosa to admit to that "real" underlying reason, of course. But we
know the reason. Right, Anthony?
Tony stated the reason fairly nicely, in fact -- "You spit on Freedom of
Speech."
Or, to put it more bluntly (and truthfully) -- "We don't really care where
the sum total of evidence leads us in the JFK murder case; our minds are
made up that the 35th U.S. President was killed as a result of a vast
conspiracy and we don't need any WC/VB shills wasting our time saying
otherwise."
James K. Olmstead
what appears which is a basic consideration....however most newsgroups allow
for readers to respond, you do not allow that....so it's just a blog not any type of
newsgroup.....there is no "group" involved it's you and only you.
jko
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:75ee78cb-5734-41d7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "In other words, you spit on Freedom of Speech. Why do I not find that
> surprising for a WC defender?" <<<
>
>
> Here's a challenge for you, Tony ---
>
> Go to CT-leaning website operators like Debra Conway, John Simkin, and
> Rich DellaRosa and say those very same words to them --- "You spit on
> Freedom of Speech".
>
Been there, done that. Why do you think I was banned from DellaRossa's
forum? I have talked to Debra Conway, and she is delightful. Still I
rarely find anything exciting on JFK Lancer. I only visit Simkin's site a
few times so I really have not seen people complaining about censorship
there.
> Since July 28, 2005, I've been banned from all of the supposedly open-
> minded John F. Kennedy forums that are owned and/or operated by the three
> above-named individuals (and for three supposedly different reasons too).
>
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the way you misrepresent the facts and
misrepresent what people have said?
> But we all know the REAL reason for those three expulsions....don't we
> Tony?
>
> You'll never in a million years get Ms. Conway, Mr. Simkin, and Mr.
> DellaRosa to admit to that "real" underlying reason, of course. But we
> know the reason. Right, Anthony?
>
I seem to remember seeing lone nutters at those.
> Tony stated the reason fairly nicely, in fact -- "You spit on Freedom of
> Speech."
>
> Or, to put it more bluntly (and truthfully) -- "We don't really care where
> the sum total of evidence leads us in the JFK murder case; our minds are
> made up that the 35th U.S. President was killed as a result of a vast
> conspiracy and we don't need any WC/VB shills wasting our time saying
> otherwise."
>
YOU are the one who doesn't care about the evidence. The evidence
screams conspiracy and you ignore it.
Jas
book, or even worse, call him a liar, when they haven't even read the
thing. Give me a break. This speaks volumes as to the integrity and
overall logical thought processes of these conspiracists, or rather, the
lack thereof.
Unbeknownst to conspiracists such as these is that by making these
ridiculous and completely absurd statements they only shoot themselves in
the foot by displaying to the rest of the assassination-research community
complete lack credibility, and more than likely just end up being put on
serious researchers' blocked email list.
These people are not researchers, they're Internet lurkers, and serve no
useful function except to stir up the beehive.
It's really too bad for them. If they just reduced their time lurking
these forums and stop taking cheap shots at LNers just because they know
in advance they're LNers, and start doing some serious study and reading
-- yes, conspiracists, like reading Vince Bugliosi's book if only to get
more educated and informed on the assassination -- more people would
listen to them.
But, they choose to take the low road, and that's their demise.
James
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:48337eb0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> It's also very telling when a conspiracist can actually pan Bugliosi's
> book, or even worse, call him a liar, when they haven't even read the
> thing. Give me a break. This speaks volumes as to the integrity and
> overall logical thought processes of these conspiracists, or rather, the
> lack thereof.
>
Give me a break. I bought the damn book and read it. Even went to his
lecture and called him a liar to his face. Even DVP has had to admit the
many bonehead mistakes in his book.
> Unbeknownst to conspiracists such as these is that by making these
> ridiculous and completely absurd statements they only shoot themselves
> in the foot by displaying to the rest of the assassination-research
> community complete lack credibility, and more than likely just end up
> being put on serious researchers' blocked email list.
>
You look down on critics from your lofty high horse because you refuse
to get down into the trenches and actually do any research yourself.
> These people are not researchers, they're Internet lurkers, and serve no
> useful function except to stir up the beehive.
>
Lurkers are people who do not post.
I've been posting on this for 30 years.
> It's really too bad for them. If they just reduced their time lurking
> these forums and stop taking cheap shots at LNers just because they know
> in advance they're LNers, and start doing some serious study and reading
> -- yes, conspiracists, like reading Vince Bugliosi's book if only to get
> more educated and informed on the assassination -- more people would
> listen to them.
>
LNers leave themselves open to cheap shots by posting nonsense.
> But, they choose to take the low road, and that's their demise.
>
So, you want a world where no one is allowed to criticize. That is not
called democracy. That is called Fascism.
David Von Pein
>>> "YOU are the one who doesn't care about the evidence." <<<
Bullshit.
>>> "The evidence screams conspiracy and you ignore it." <<<
Bullshit (again).
Here's a more accurate statement:
Conspiracy-happy theorists scream conspiracy and you [rightfully]
ignore them.
James K. Olmstead
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message news:4835c5ef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> It's also very telling when a conspiracist can actually pan Bugliosi's book, or even worse, call him a liar, when they
> haven't even read the thing. Give me a break. This speaks volumes as to the integrity and overall logical thought
> processes of these conspiracists, or rather, the lack thereof.
>
Jas: I have never called him a liar and have spent 10 months in detailed
research concerning several areas of his book. When you attack in
general, you show a lack of understanding that not all "conspiracists" fit
the persona you attack.
> Unbeknownst to conspiracists such as these is that by making these ridiculous and completely absurd statements they
> only shoot themselves in the foot by displaying to the rest of the assassination-research community complete lack
> credibility, and more than likely just end up being put on serious researchers' blocked email list.
I doubt you know who's blocked in the research community by who.
>
> These people are not researchers, they're Internet lurkers, and serve no useful function except to stir up the
> beehive.
Gee......lurkers I've been on this newsgroup since it started...and I'm no
lurker.
>
> It's really too bad for them. If they just reduced their time lurking these forums and stop taking cheap shots at
> LNers just because they know in advance they're LNers, and start doing some serious study and reading -- yes,
> conspiracists, like reading Vince Bugliosi's book if only to get more educated and informed on the assassination --
> more people would listen to them.
In other words you want those interested, to go away.....not everybody
feels that they have to post....and not all feel that they have to attack
LN'ers just because that's what they believe.
BTW How can people get others to listen to on David's "newsgroup" if they
can't express what they've learned?
>
> But, they choose to take the low road, and that's their demise.
VB did alot to dispel old views of conspiracy....works that were done in
the 60-70 and 80's but he lacks insight into views gained after the
ARRB....especially works not yet published....which is his "demise".
jko
David Von Pein
>>> "BTW How can people get others to listen to on David's "newsgroup" if
they can't express what they've learned?" <<<
Express it in here (or at the Asylum at acj). There's always room for
one more thread.
James K. Olmstead
Then why establish a "newsgroup" dedicated to VB's book?
jko
David Von Pein
>>> "Then why establish a "newsgroup" dedicated to VB's book?" <<<
Because I wanted to.
Simple as that.
Jas
called Bugliosi a liar, but as you well know, some conspiracists here do.
I don't like to name names. It invokes personal attacks.
2 things: Number one, you thought I was talking about you personally -- I
wasn't. I apologize, I should have specified. However, number two, just a
tip: you should try to get off the defensive.
By the reactions of certain conspiracists it's obvious that Bugliosi has
already disturbed and upset the conspiracy community with his book. And, as
time goes on, "Reclaiming History" will become even more devastating a
weapon against the conspiracy movement as it becomes more well-known.
However, I feel conspiracists and LNers both should strive to learn as much
about the assassination as they can, regardless of their points of view, and
Bugliosi's book is a wealth of information for that purpose.
James
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48372fc5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> I was speaking to conspiracists in general. I didn't say you personally
> called Bugliosi a liar, but as you well know, some conspiracists here do.
>
> I don't like to name names. It invokes personal attacks.
>
> 2 things: Number one, you thought I was talking about you personally --
> I wasn't. I apologize, I should have specified. However, number two,
> just a tip: you should try to get off the defensive.
>
> By the reactions of certain conspiracists it's obvious that Bugliosi has
> already disturbed and upset the conspiracy community with his book. And,
As a die-hard WC defender you should be embarrassed to have Bugliosi on
your side, lying to the public.
James K. Olmstead
>
>>>> "Then why establish a "newsgroup" dedicated to VB's book?" <<<
>
> Because I wanted to.
> Simple as that.
>
Then you short change the opportunity for open discussion on his
book....for both sides. EOM.....Ego Over Matter.
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message news:4838e39b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>I was speaking to conspiracists in general. I didn't say you personally called Bugliosi a liar, but as you well know,
>some conspiracists here do.
Since only two people considered CT's responded to this...there are only
two people you can be responding besides DVP.
>
> I don't like to name names. It invokes personal attacks.
Yet you attack non the less.
>
> 2 things: Number one, you thought I was talking about you personally -- I wasn't. I apologize, I should have
> specified. However, number two, just a tip: you should try to get off the defensive.
Yes, you should be specific......when attacked even in general....one has
the right to be defensive. I speak up when solid researchers are attacked
in general and since I don't speak for any group of researchers I use
myself as the case in point.
> By the reactions of certain conspiracists it's obvious that Bugliosi has already disturbed and upset the conspiracy
> community with his book.
And if you didn't blanket every CT of the same cloth...you would know some
of us have a great deal of respect for the man. I've waited 3 years for
his book to come out to see if I was on the right track with my "legal
considerations" and it turns out I was, so I'm very pleased his work is
getting attention.
And, as
> time goes on, "Reclaiming History" will become even more devastating a weapon against the conspiracy movement as it
> becomes more well-known.
It's not going to have any major effect on the educational view of
history... historical events are either Random Acts....or....Conspiracy.
Those are the two views. VB has (as mentioned) done a great deal on
conspiracy's presented in the past.....but does not fully address issues
on material studied since the ARRB.
> However, I feel conspiracists and LNers both should strive to learn as much about the assassination as they can,
> regardless of their points of view, and Bugliosi's book is a wealth of information for that purpose.
And DVP's newsgroup, which could be the best meeting grounds....will not
be because only one side can be presented.
jko
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>But I never intended for my "RH" site to be a "Discussion" group.
>Hence, the definition "Announcement Only" being put into the
>description of the group by Google.
>
>It's more-or-less a "Bulletin Board" for "Reclaiming History". And
>that's just exactly what I wanted, without having to put up with any
>of the "Bugliosi is a WC shill" nonsense that always occurs when the
>topic of VB's book surfaces on the open discussion forums.
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/topics
>
>
>
>
>I've already done that (for free), at www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com.
>
>Yes, that's only a "blog", but most blogs can really be deemed
>"websites" all their own too. In fact, I took note of this "Blog"
>definition in Wikipedia (although Wiki can be wrong many times about
>certain things, but I continue to be amazed by the sheer scope of
>material that is searchable at the Wikipedia site):
>
>
> "A blog (an abridgment of the term 'web log') is a website,
>usually maintained by an individual, with regular entries of
>commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics
>or video."
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks for the link, Dave. But the free blog set-up works just fine
>for my JFK purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yes, I've gotten pretty good at HTML coding too. I always edit my blog
>using only HTML mode; it's easier that way, once you get accustomed to
>what you're doing. Although it's no doubt quite intimidating to
>someone who has never edited or written something directly using HTML.
>It confused the heck out of me for a while (and sometimes still does).
>Plus, Blogger.com has a mind of its own on occasion too, which always
>elicits a few cries of agony and anguish. ;)
>
The one advantage of a website over a blog is that the structure of a
blog is necessarily serial. One post follows another. You can
manipulate the order all you want, but still one post follows another.
A website can have an hierarchical structure, which is a huge plus in
certain ways.
It is true, however,that you could mimic that by having a first post,
always at the top, which is a menu of choices organized my major topic
area.
Let me suggest that, however you scatter stuff around the 'net, that
you be sure that all of it is on your blog, either copied there or at
least linked from there.
People need to be able to go to one place and get the DVP view of the
assassination.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jas
And vice versa my friend. Here I apologize for not being specific and you
nonetheless point the accusatory finger right back at me. Sheeesh, remind
me never to apologize to a conspiracist -- they can't even take an apology
gracefully. Yes, I'm talking about you Mr. Olmstead.
James
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4839cc0a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Von Pein
>>> "Then you short change the opportunity for open discussion on his
book....for both sides." <<<
It can be discussed here....and at acj and at Lancer and at Edu. Forum and
at Wim's Murder Solved Forum and at IMDB and at JFKResearch.com and at
Amazon, etc., etc.
There are plenty of "open" forums for discussing it -- which I have done
at several of those locations as well.
David Von Pein
>>> "Let me suggest that, however you scatter stuff around the 'net, that
you be sure that all of it is on your blog, either copied there or at
least linked from there. " <<<
Exactly. That's precisely how I do it too.
James K. Olmstead
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message news:483a005d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> James K. O. said: "Yes, you should be specific......when attacked even in general....one has the right to be
> defensive."
>
> And vice versa my friend. Here I apologize for not being specific and you nonetheless point the accusatory finger
> right back at me. Sheeesh, remind me never to apologize to a conspiracist -- they can't even take an apology
> gracefully. Yes, I'm talking about you Mr. Olmstead.
What goes around comes around.....which is why general attacks do nothing
but cause bad feelings.
I'm no way bound to be gracefull beyond newsgroup limits.
I see comments based on attacking one view as a total lack of having the
right to a Conspiratorial view of history.
The finger points to the source...........jko
James K. Olmstead
Then what's the need for another site? The sites you mention I never
visit.
jko
jfk...@gmail.com
> NEW "GOOGLE GROUPS" WEBSITE........
>
> ======================================================
>
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":
>
> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
>
> ======================================================
Why are you calling this a 'newsgroup' when nobody can post but you?
It is simply a bug-apologist site.
Anthony Marsh
> James K. O. said: "Glad you like the idea.....he posts the material and
> reposts it here, maybe that will stop."
>
> Quite the contrary, I hope he'll step up his anti-conspiracy assault
> with his site.
>
> I love it when Bugliosi's book brings out the sour grapes in
> conspiracists-- it's so telling that the man has dealt a death blow to
> the Kennedy conspiracy movement, whether they want to admit it or not.
>
Oh yeah, death blow, eh? As if you think that 90% of the public will now
believe the WC?
> James
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4832d127$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Glad you like the idea.....he posts the material and reposts it here,
>> maybe that will stop.
>>
>> jko
>>
>> "Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:48323d34$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> James O. wrote: "Any newsgroup which you can't post to has little
>>> value in the exchange of ideas and research connected to the book or
>>> the case."
>>>
>>> I disagree. David is simply wanting to post assassination-related
>>> material without the interference of random posting, and without the
>>> possible sidetracking that arises from it at times, in a sort of
>>> "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan" manner. I think it's a good idea.
>>> There are plenty of these Kennedy forums in existence where people
>>> can post their points of view from both sides of the fence.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> "James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4831b044$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>> Any newsgroup which you can't post to has little value in the
>>>> exchange of ideas and
>>>> research connected to the book or the case.
>>>>
>>>> jko
>>>>
>>>> "Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bed7e279-0f88-4f93...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> On May 18, 12:00?pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> NEW "GOOGLE GROUPS" WEBSITE........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
David Von Pein
>>> "Why are you calling this a 'newsgroup' when nobody can post but you?"
<<<
Google calls them all "Google Groups". I didn't invent the term. So go
complain to Google.
>>> "It is simply a bug-apologist site." <<<
Cute.
<proverbial eyeroll>
Anthony Marsh
> REPRISE:
>
>
>>>> "David, Is this really necessary?" <<<
>
>
>
> related forums is really "necessary". It's all a huge waste of time and
> energy, as we all know, because nobody is changing anybody's mind about
> the John F. Kennedy assassination one way or the other.
>
> I've never, ever ONCE heard somebody say this as a result of reading any
> LNer's comments on the various newsgroups/forums: "You know what, that guy
> makes a lot of sense; I was wrong; I now think Oswald acted alone."
>
Oh, is that what you think the purpose of this newsgroup is? To convert
everyone to WC defenders? Don't spill the beans like that.
> Has that ever happened to anybody here? If so, I've yet to hear about it.
> It certainly hasn't happened to me. And I KNOW I make a lot of "sense".
> <wink>
>
Nonsense.
> So, as I said, these forums are purely for FYI and entertainment and
> opponent-bashing purposes only....as is quite obvious by reading pretty
> much anything written in the newsgroups.
>
They should be for sharing information.
> Having spouted the above forthright rant, I will also say that I'd like to
> think that a few of my LN-favoring posts, reviews, and assorted articles
> have met with some degree of approval and favorable head-nodding over the
> years....although certainly not by any members of the entrenched
> "Conspiracy" crowd (naturally).
>
> And since Google allows people to start up these "Newsgroups" for free and
> with very little effort, I decided to start one up devoted exclusively to
> Vince Bugliosi's "Book For The Ages" ["Reclaiming History"].
>
This is NOT a Google newsgroup. Usenet is not Google. You did not set up
a newsgroup for discussion. You set up a blog for ranting.
> I'm not allowing anybody else to post anything at all to the RH site,
> however, because I don't want it ruined by a bunch of meaningless
> "Bugliosi's nothing but a liar" crap from CTers (which would, of course,
> inevitably happen over the course of time).
>
Over the course of time? My first message would be, "Bugliosi is a liar."
> If that's called "censorship", so be it. Then I'm a censor. But since
> Google gives the group's "owner" a right to decide who can post and who
> can't, I'm going to take advantage of those options and "ownership"
> rights.
>
You don't decide. There is no posting allowed. It is a blog, not a
discussion group.
> So, is my "RH" Google site "necessary"? Hell, no. Of course it isn't. But
> I don't care. I like it anyway. :)
>
> Maybe next month I'll start up a new NG called: "The Wonders Of Watching
> Grass Grow".
>
> That site won't be the slightest bit "necessary" either; and it'll
> probably attract about the same number of visitors as my new "RH" site
> (anywhere from 0 to 2 per month). <Cheshire grin>
>
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
David Von Pein
>>> "You did not set up a newsgroup for discussion." <<<
Correct, I didn't. Discussion is not its purpose.
>>> "You set up a blog for ranting." <<<
Live with it. If you don't like my "announcement only" format -- tough
shit.
(Good to see this thread bumped though. Thanks.)