McElwain-Brown threatens to post propaganda
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------------
From: "jfk2...@gmail.com" <jfk2...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Reitzes has to have propaganda explained to him...
Date: 21 Nov 2008 22:13:01 -0500
On Nov 21, 8:54=A0pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:47 pm, ss6...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 4:39 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > I mean, like when one is reading some of Dave R's propaganda at his=
site,
> > > > and one starts to think of a stinky, smelly, runny Brie...
>
> > > You keep saying things like this, Pam, but you can never back it up
> > > with any facts.
>
> > > Why, it's almost as if you were just, oh, I dunno, making it all up
> > > out of thin air.
>
> > > Hmmmm. \:^)
>
> > I would have to rewrite your webpage in an objective format in order
> > to make it clear enough for you to understand, and I really don't have
> > time for that today.
>
> So the self-proclaimed dangerous conspiracy theorist, the one who
> 'makes waves,' can't back up a word she says.
>
> Surprise, surprise. \:^)
>
> Lurkers and newcomers, please check out my website for feature
> articles, book reviews, documents, and loads of useful links:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com
>
> Dave
Actually, I'm thinking more of doing a propaganda page on you; that might
make discernment in that area a little easier for you.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------------
Sadly, Pamela never followed through on her threat.
Dave
Grizzlie Antagonist
She follows up in a similar matter after she threatens to answer a
question.
Barb Junkkarinen
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
HAHAHA! Hands down, the best chuckle of the day....
Barb :-)
Grizzlie Antagonist
<grins> Of course, I meant to say "in a similar manner".
William Yates
Did she ever post her reply to Dave Perry?
pjfk
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
Reitzes has yet to comprehend irony.
pjfk
wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2010 23:49:18 -0400, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
I don't bother to reply to rhetorical questions or to trolls, which
accounts for most of what Reitzes and Barb demand. Sorry.
Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not looking to get into a flame war or a personality clash on a
moderated group.
My remarks are intended only to be observations -- as impartial as
possible -- about your conduct.
And my observation is that you do not answer questions that might be
troubling to your point of view, regardless of who is asking them.
Yes, those include "rhetorical questions", why not?
In large part, to the extent that I read them, the things that you say are
not based on fact but almost exclusively on your own opinion.
They may be based -- for example -- upon what you think the law is or
should be -- but not necessarily upon someone else's understanding of what
the law is or should be.
They may be based upon what you think is "fair" or "reasonable" but not
necessarily upon what someone else might think is "fair" or "reasonable".
There is a lot of purely subjective content in what you say.
You may be entitled to your opinions and your perceptions, but such
opinions/perceptions expressed by you invite contrary examples. They
invite and indeed encourage the other person to utilize the Socratic
Method -- i.e., "rhetorical questions".
So I think that it is a copout, really, for you to say that you will not
answer "rhetorical questions". A little like a batter hogging the inside
of home plate and then complaining when a fastball brushes too close to
him.
Anthony Marsh
You of all people claim that you are above engaging in a flame war? When
you are often the one lighting them up?
> My remarks are intended only to be observations -- as impartial as
> possible -- about your conduct.
>
Only intended to be flame baiting.
> And my observation is that you do not answer questions that might be
> troubling to your point of view, regardless of who is asking them.
>
You're one to talk. You never answer questions that challenge your
distortions.
> Yes, those include "rhetorical questions", why not?
>
Rhetorical questions are not used to progress the debate, but to
ridicule the other person.
> In large part, to the extent that I read them, the things that you say are
> not based on fact but almost exclusively on your own opinion.
>
Yeah, so what?
> They may be based -- for example -- upon what you think the law is or
> should be -- but not necessarily upon someone else's understanding of what
> the law is or should be.
>
You are not the one to decide what the law is.
Dave Reitzes
If Pam isn't posting threats, she's posting insults.
Anything but research. \:^)
Dave
pjfk
With all due respect, I don't think you have bothered to read my posts, or
if you have, to do so for comprehension of my position. This group has
been used to libel a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of
1963. The slanted field of the mods and ex-mod Barb who can post whatever
they want while censoring posts of others has made it difficult to try to
do anything more than simply define the abuse and attempt to undo the
worst of the libel. In addition, I have stated elsewhere on this group
that I am not involving myself in any detailed discussions about Judyth at
least until her sanctioned version of her book comes out.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John McAdams
>On Mar 25, 9:00=A0pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> I'm not looking to get into a flame war or a personality clash on a
>> moderated group.
>>
>> My remarks are intended only to be observations -- as impartial as
>> possible -- about your conduct.
>>
>> And my observation is that you do not answer questions that might be
>> troubling to your point of view, regardless of who is asking them.
>>
>> Yes, those include "rhetorical questions", why not?
>>
>> In large part, to the extent that I read them, the things that you say are
>> not based on fact but almost exclusively on your own opinion.
>>
>> They may be based -- for example -- upon what you think the law is or
>> should be -- but not necessarily upon someone else's understanding of what
>> the law is or should be.
>>
>> They may be based upon what you think is "fair" or "reasonable" but not
>> necessarily upon what someone else might think is "fair" or "reasonable".
>> There is a lot of purely subjective content in what you say.
>>
>> You may be entitled to your opinions and your perceptions, but such
>> opinions/perceptions expressed by you invite contrary examples. =A0They
>> invite and indeed encourage the other person to utilize the Socratic
>> Method -- i.e., "rhetorical questions".
>>
>> So I think that it is a copout, really, for you to say that you will not
>> answer "rhetorical questions". =A0A little like a batter hogging the inside
>> of home plate and then complaining when a fastball brushes too close to
>> him.
>
>
>With all due respect, I don't think you have bothered to read my posts, or
>if you have, to do so for comprehension of my position. This group has
>been used to libel a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of
>1963.
You somehow don't know how to argue a position.
The truth can never be "libel."
Either defend Judyth's story as being true, or quit the "libel"
nonsense.
>The slanted field of the mods and ex-mod Barb who can post whatever
>they want while censoring posts of others has made it difficult to try to
>do anything more than simply define the abuse and attempt to undo the
>worst of the libel.
You've never had a substantive post discussing Judyth rejected by the
moderators.
Actually, that may be because you've never *made* a substantive post
about Judyth.
>In addition, I have stated elsewhere on this group
>that I am not involving myself in any detailed discussions about Judyth at
>least until her sanctioned version of her book comes out.
>
Good call.
You don't want to have to defend what she was saying last month, which
was different from what she was saying two months ago, which was
different from what she was saying three months ago, and so on.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Her story doesn't have to be true for it to be libel. It is libel when you
claim that the motive for her story is fraud. Regardless of what parts of
her story are true. Not every element of her story can be true, but some
things have been proven as true. I myself have proven some true. I have no
interest in proving that every part of her story is true. But it does your
side no honor to make up false accusations.
>> The slanted field of the mods and ex-mod Barb who can post whatever
>> they want while censoring posts of others has made it difficult to try to
>> do anything more than simply define the abuse and attempt to undo the
>> worst of the libel.
>
> You've never had a substantive post discussing Judyth rejected by the
> moderators.
>
> Actually, that may be because you've never *made* a substantive post
> about Judyth.
>
And only one dictator gets to decide what is substantive. Is that how you
define Democracy?
>
>> In addition, I have stated elsewhere on this group
>> that I am not involving myself in any detailed discussions about Judyth at
>> least until her sanctioned version of her book comes out.
>>
>
> Good call.
>
Naive.
> You don't want to have to defend what she was saying last month, which
> was different from what she was saying two months ago, which was
> different from what she was saying three months ago, and so on.
>
You don't mind when your favorite witnesses change their stories every day.
pjfk
That was a gentle hint, Dave. And after you check out 'irony' you
might want to spend some time with 'propaganda'.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
pjfk
There McAdams has hoist himself on his own petard. He thinks his
opinion of 'the truth' equals the actual truth. Ironically, nothing
could be further from...the truth.
>
> Either defend Judyth's story as being true, or quit the "libel"
> nonsense.
Here McAdams falls prey to the fallacy of false alternatives. He has
posited two ideas that he seems to think adequately define a process for
dealing with a documented witness. His process shows no sophistication at
all. Nor is it appropriate. However, he will probably continue to defend
it at all costs; because an alternative simply opens Pandora's box.
>
> >The slanted field of the mods and ex-mod Barb who can post whatever
> >they want while censoring posts of others has made it difficult to try to
> >do anything more than simply define the abuse and attempt to undo the
> >worst of the libel.
>
> You've never had a substantive post discussing Judyth rejected by the
> moderators.
Hilarious. That is the aaj equivalent of Gary Mack-speak saying 'he has
never seen solid evidence of a conspiracy.' I learned years ago not to
even try to fight the slanted field. If you recall, I made numerous posts
at that time defining that.
>
> Actually, that may be because you've never *made* a substantive post
> about Judyth.
This is probably what McAdams thinks is 'logic'. It is not. Next he will
probably claim that there can be no substantive posts about Judyth.
>
> >In addition, I have stated elsewhere on this group
> >that I am not involving myself in any detailed discussions about Judyth at
> >least until her sanctioned version of her book comes out.
>
> Good call.
I think it is fair.
>
> You don't want to have to defend what she was saying last month, which
> was different from what she was saying two months ago, which was
> different from what she was saying three months ago, and so on.
>
McAdams still refuses to acknowledge that my orientation to the
assassination is different from his; my background is in the study of
history, not poli sci. I do not 'believe or 'disbelieve' witnesses. I
look for their documentation, then let them have an open forum in which to
speak. I then weigh and evaluate what they have to say, comparing that
with other threads of information and witness statements. That is an
historical process.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Dave Reitzes
"Threats, Insults, and Gentle Hints: The Pamela McElwain-Brown Story."
Coming soon from TrineDay.
Dave \:^)
Dave Reitzes
> On Mar 26, 2:30�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> > On 26 Mar 2010 14:10:06 -0400, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >With all due respect, I don't think you have bothered to read my posts, or
> > >if you have, to do so for comprehension of my position. This group has
> > >been used to libel a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of
> > >1963. �
>
> > You somehow don't know how to argue a position.
>
> > The truth can never be "libel."
>
> There McAdams has hoist himself on his own petard. He thinks his
> opinion of 'the truth' equals the actual truth. Ironically, nothing
> could be further from...the truth.
>
>
>
> > Either defend Judyth's story as being true, or quit the "libel"
> > nonsense.
>
> Here McAdams falls prey to the fallacy of false alternatives. He has
> posited two ideas that he seems to think adequately define a process for
> dealing with a documented witness. �His process shows no sophistication at
> all. �Nor is it appropriate. �However, he will probably continue to defend
> it at all costs; because an alternative simply opens Pandora's box.
Pam can't defend Judyth, but neither can she quit talking.
It's as though Martin never left!
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Why do you keep bringing up Judyth? Cui bono?
pjfk
Even the range of Reitzes 'sense of humor' seems limited. :-0
Dave Reitzes
Too subtle a title for you? How about "Fast Cars and Loose Women"?
Well, let's summarize. Pamela's threats fail to demonstrate that my
website contains propaganda. Her insults fail to make the case. Her
gentle hints fall short of the mark.
I dunno, Pam, I just might need to see some evidence. I guess I'm just
kind of weird that way.
Dave \:^)