Misc. Posts By Kooks At The Education Forum
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=150&p=202190&#entry202190
AN ASSORTMENT OF POSTS BY VARIOUS CONSPIRACY KOOKS AT THE EDUCATION
FORUM AND MY REPLIES:
>>> "Anything based on "must haves" and "may haves" deserves to be
ignored. Just like Bugliosi's crappy book." <<<
LOL. Hilarity at its best here.
Bugliosi writes a book with 4,000 more citations than the Warren
Report and yet it's a "crappy" book filled with nothing but "must
haves" and "may haves".
(Oh, my bladder!)
I was expecting a higher-class batch of conspiracy mongers at this
forum. Obviously, I was expecting way, way too much.
Incredibly, per CTers, John Armstrong's "may have" book of tripe is
supposed to be considered a great masterpiece of JFK literature, but
Vince Bugliosi's book of solid facts and evidence is supposed to be
"ignored".
What a topsy-turvy world CTers live in.
>>> "Why are you cross posting from other forums, Dave? Has Rob given you
his permission? Is Rob Caprio here to defend himself? I once cross posted
your work from assassinationforum.com to this forum after asking you,
politely, by PM. Have you been doing the same? In fact, I don't remember
you asking me if it was okay to cross my posts from assassinationforum.com
to the McAdams forum, where I'm not a member and couldn't respond. It's
just not cricket, old boy." <<<
I don't need your permission to copy something you've written on a
public forum, Lee. And I don't ever intend to ask permission to cross-
post from forum to forum. If it's on the Internet, it's fair game.
BTW, before you ask me about posting Gary Mack's e-mails sans
permission:
Gary expects that to happen. I've done it for years. And so have many
other people who think Gary's e-mails contain an abundance of good
info (and common sense, to boot). I know Gary doesn't mind his mails
getting posted at forums. In fact, he encourages it most of the time.
BTW #2,
Please explain to me the difference between cross-posting something
written at another forum and the CTers who enjoy trashing Vincent
Bugliosi's book at a public forum like this one? Is there a big
difference between the two?
Bugliosi certainly isn't a member of The Education Forum (or any other
forum); therefore, he can't "defend" himself from the onslaught of
sewage that is slung at his exemplary book every single day on the
Internet.
In fact, anyone who uses quotes from Bugliosi's book on the Internet
is technically breaking the law, because I've noticed that VB's
"Reclaiming History" is one of the very few books that I own that
doesn't allow ANYTHING (not even a single sentence) to be copied and
reprinted without the express permission of the publisher, W.W.
Norton.
So, in a way, it's much worse (legally-speaking) to trash Bugliosi's
book (via specific quoted passages) on a public Internet website like
The Education Forum or James DiEugenio's CTKA.net site, because it's
illegal to do so without express permission (which I'm pretty sure
DiEugenio never obtained from Starling Lawrence or W.W. Norton &
Company).
F.Y.I. Footnote -- I, however, did obtain express permission (in 2007)
from Vincent Bugliosi's publisher/editor, Starling Lawrence, to use
extensive quotes from Bugliosi's book in my lengthy book review. (It
took me months to get that permission from W.W. Norton, too.)
>>> "I'm shaking in my boots. If I ever post a passage from RH
["Reclaiming History"], I will mark the time of the post, so we can clock
how long it takes the Swat Team to break down my door and arrest me and my
family for quoting VB." <<<
LOL. Exactly, Dean. :)
But before citing VB, please make sure that you hide all the bootleg
whiskey that you, Sparky, and Lee Harvey are consuming prior to the
SWAT team's arrival.
Ten-Four?
BTW, your humorous post above is kind of proving my point from my
previous post about quoting people from other websites -- IOW, who
cares?
Obviously, nobody cares about actually breaking a copyright law by
citing thousands of words from a book like "Reclaiming History" on
their websites (or hundreds of other books that have strict rules on
not reprinting material). And yet Lee Farley expects me to garner
specific permission from someone on another PUBLIC FORUM before I can
post his ALREADY PUBLIC words on another website.
Meh.
>>> "'Reclaiming History' provides extensive examples of evidence that
demo nstrates beyond doubt that a conspiracy existed to murder President
Kennedy and that the Warren Commission showed no desire to explore that
possibility. Most of the examples had been covered earlier by others, but
Bugliosi deserves credit for including so many of them in one volume." <<<
That previously-mentioned "topsy-turvy" world that conspiracy
theorists call home once again rises to the surface via Michael
Hogan's last idiotic Education Forum post above.
Dave Reitzes
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=150&p=...
>
> AN ASSORTMENT OF POSTS BY VARIOUS CONSPIRACY KOOKS AT THE EDUCATION
> FORUM AND MY REPLIES:
[...]
> >>> "Why are you cross posting from other forums, Dave? Has Rob given you
>
> his permission? Is Rob Caprio here to defend himself? I once cross posted
> your work from assassinationforum.com to this forum after asking you,
> politely, by PM. Have you been doing the same? In fact, I don't remember
> you asking me if it was okay to cross my posts from assassinationforum.com
> to the McAdams forum, where I'm not a member and couldn't respond. It's
> just not cricket, old boy." <<<
>
> I don't need your permission to copy something you've written on a
> public forum, Lee. And I don't ever intend to ask permission to cross-
> post from forum to forum. If it's on the Internet, it's fair game.
You might want to check with John Simkin, though, as some forum
administrators -- Debra Conway, for example, and the people at
JFKreseach -- explicitly forbid crossposting material from their
respective forums.
I wouldn't want to see you get booted again.
Dave
Bud
He might want to ask Simkin why he allowed conspiracy retard Lee Farley
to call Fran-funny "c"-ois Cartier a "dumbass", "weirdo" and "clown", and
why he was allowed to threaten violence to LNers ("I have yet to meet a
lone-nut who I haven`t wanted to slap" -- although it`s understandable
that he doesn`t follow through with the threat, how many toddlers have
opinions on the assassination?).
> I wouldn't want to see you get booted again.
Only a matter of time. It`s clear there are two sets of rules at
that place.
>
> Dave
David Von Pein
>>> "I wouldn't want to see you get booted again." <<<
Doesn't really matter to me. Almost all of the CTers there are a bunch of
kooks anyway. But that's not real surprising.
I'm sure I'll say something one day that will irk Simkin, and he'll show
me the door. It's bound to happen. I have to sit on my hands to keep from
typing the K word at that place. But, I've been good so far-- haven't
called any of those kooks kooks yet. :)
David Von Pein
FYI --
To illustrate the warped condition that "conspiracy research" is in:
""Marguerite Oswald" was a paid actress employed by the CIA to play
the part of Harvey's mother. See Harvey & Lee by Armstrong." -- Jack
White; August 28, 2010
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16339&st=105&p=203885&#entry203885
Bill Kelly
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=150&p=...
>
I would gladly post Bugliosi's entire book on line if he would promise to
sue me, so then we can go to court and we'll have JFK assassination case
in court!
And then I can call Ruth and Michael Paine to testify, ha ha.
BK
David Von Pein
JIM "OSWALD NEVER SHOT ANYONE" DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Davey Boy: Oswald never bought the ammo because he never owned that
rifle." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A conspiracy kook and nutjob like Jim DiEugenio could wake up one winter
morning and see a foot of snow outside his front door (if he ever moved
from Los Angeles to a colder climate, that is)....but he would then
scratch his head and say to himself: "Gee, I wonder how all that white
stuff got on my porch? I didn't see it falling from the sky."
Hence, DiEugenio would have no choice but to conclude that it didn't snow
at all the previous night.
He's got the same really strange mindset regarding the two weapons (and
the bullets that were placed into them) that Lee Harvey Oswald ORDERED
[CE785 & CE790], PAID FOR [CE789 & CE790], and POSSESSED [CE637] in 1963.
And, incredibly, Jimbo even utilizes the same oddball reasoning when it
comes to the topic of Oswald having POSSESSION of Revolver V510210
too....even though Oswald was caught red-handed with V510210 IN HIS HANDS
in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963!
In short -- If it really took all of the things that the silly JFK
conspiracy lunatics say are required to be proven in order to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, then no crime could
ever possibly be solved.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> JIM "OSWALD NEVER SHOT ANYONE" DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
>>>> "Davey Boy: Oswald never bought the ammo because he never owned that
> rifle."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> A conspiracy kook and nutjob like Jim DiEugenio could wake up one winter
> morning and see a foot of snow outside his front door (if he ever moved
> from Los Angeles to a colder climate, that is)....but he would then
> scratch his head and say to himself: "Gee, I wonder how all that white
> stuff got on my porch? I didn't see it falling from the sky."
>
> Hence, DiEugenio would have no choice but to conclude that it didn't snow
> at all the previous night.
>
> He's got the same really strange mindset regarding the two weapons (and
> the bullets that were placed into them) that Lee Harvey Oswald ORDERED
>
> And, incredibly, Jimbo even utilizes the same oddball reasoning when it
> comes to the topic of Oswald having POSSESSION of Revolver V510210
> too....even though Oswald was caught red-handed with V510210 IN HIS HANDS
> in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963!
>
> In short -- If it really took all of the things that the silly JFK
> conspiracy lunatics say are required to be proven in order to prove beyond
> a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, then no crime could
> ever possibly be solved.
>
Maybe if we required law enforcement to actually prove its case with
HARD evidence instead of allowing it to tamper with and destroy evidence
fewer innocent people would be wrongfully convicted.
I bet you were cock sure that the case against OJ Simpson was as
airtight as the one against Oswald. And then what happened?
Prosecutorial misconduct ruined a solid case.
Remember the air tight case against Dreyfus?
Sandy McCroskey
What a non sequitur.
If you put Reclaiming History online and Bugliosi sued, the case would
not be about the JFK assassination at all.
/sm
pjsp...@aol.com
Dave, this is perhaps the most embarrassing thread you've ever
started. You add words like "kook" into your Ed Forum posts when
presented to this newsgroup, so you can make it appear you're a BIG
MAN over on the Forum, speaking truth to lunacy. When that's anything
but the truth...
Pretty sad, IMO. As anyone can see by reading the key threads over on
the forum, you have been thoroughly defeated. NOT because there isn't
evidence for Oswald's guilt. There is. But because you continue to
defend Bugliosi's treatment of the evidence, when, as pointed out by
DiEugenio, his treatment of the evidence is thoroughly one-sided.
If you could bring yourself to admit the obvious--that Bugliosi's book
was a prosecutor's brief masquerading as an open-minded and
comprehensive look at the evidence, you would be on solid ground, IMO.
And then be able to argue that Bugliosi's claims were true. But,
instead, you have let your hero-worship get in the way and have fallen
into the trap of defending Bugliosi's treatment of the evidence. Which
is often indefensible.
If I were you, I'd change the playing field...
David Von Pein
The evidence IS the evidence, regardless of how it's presented -- by
Vince Bugliosi or anybody else.
Where conspiracists fall flat on their collective faces is in the
INTERPRETATION of the evidence.
LNers think all of the evidence against Oswald is legit.
CTers think just the opposite (particularly those in the "Anybody But
Oz" category of CTers, like DiEugenio and several others at Simkin's
forum) -- with the CTers thinking that all of the evidence against LHO
has been faked or manipulated or planted.
Those CTers have no choice but to believe that the evidence is rigged
-- otherwise their patsy is guilty of 2 murders.
Simple as that.
I thoroughly love Vince Bugliosi's treatment of the conspiracy clowns
(esp. the "ABO" types). They deserve every bit of venom and sarcasm
that VB can dish up. IMHO.
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, this is perhaps the most embarrassing thread you've ever started. You add words like "kook" into your Ed Forum posts when presented to this newsgroup, so you can make it appear you're a BIG MAN over on the Forum, speaking truth to lunacy." <<<
Yes, Pat, I've added the dreaded K word here.
You see, I don't dare say that word in front of Simkin. He'll delete
it immediately. He already has censored me once, but it wasn't re the
K word, which I promised I would not use there, and I've kept that
promise), it was when I called DiEugenio an "idiot" for calling Jean
Davison a "lousy researcher".
Simkin, within one hour, edited out that comment--and, btw, gave me my
first "warning" about how I wasn't supposed to "abuse" the other
members (although I think many of Lee Farley's derogatory comments
toward me are still in full view of the Edu. Forum population to see).
Here's the mail I got from Simkin:
"David Von Pein,
John Simkin has sent you a new personal conversation entitled
"Warning".
John Simkin said:
You will be placed on moderation if you continue to abuse other
members.
John Simkin"
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>John Simkin has sent you a new personal conversation entitled
>"Warning".
>
>John Simkin said:
>
>You will be placed on moderation if you continue to abuse other
>members.
David, your posts will be rejected here if you call someone who posts
here a kook or idiot.
Why not fight your battles on the forum you begin them on?
Running over here, and bad mouthing people over there is rather
cowardly, don't ya think?
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
So, you're saying that Simkin is just as biased in his moderating duties
as McAdams is?
I am not allowed to call you a kook.
Bud
> On 1 Sep 2010 07:49:52 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Simkin has sent you a new personal conversation entitled
> >"Warning".
>
> >John Simkin said:
>
> >You will be placed on moderation if you continue to abuse other
> >members.
>
> David, your posts will be rejected here if you call someone who posts
> here a kook or idiot.
Has he?
> Why not fight your battles on the forum you begin them on?
Is he breaking the rules here doing so, Peter?
> Running over here, and bad mouthing people over there is rather
> cowardly, don't ya think?
No more cowardly than many CTers "running" here and blaming everyone
under the sun for killing Kennedy.
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
David Von Pein
>>> "David, your posts will be rejected here if you call someone who posts
here a kook or idiot." <<<
Yes, I know. So?
>>> "Why not fight your battles on the forum you begin them on?" <<<
I do.
I merely copy-&-paste my Edu. Forum posts into aaj and acj (while adding
the obligatory K word, as needed and required). :)
The acj versions, btw, never ever elicit a response...from anybody. I have
those threads all to myself (for archival purposes).
>>> "Running over here, and bad mouthing people over there is rather
cowardly, don't ya think?" <<<
No.
Besides, DiEugenio knows I think he's a kook. That's no secret. It's just
that I cannot express that thought in print at Simkin's house. So let me
vent it SOMEWHERE, Peter. Ten-Four? :)
(I could also vent it on my 40+ blogs too....which I do, of course.)