> Pamela, could you list some of the "distortions" you've noted on
> Reitzes "erroneous pages"?

> Thanks,
> Barb :-)

>>On 4 Jul 2006 01:24:34 -0400, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>wrote:

>>><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dfvda25ovkib5foe7d027ljfbanq6t6njq@4ax.com...

>>>>On 1 Jul 2006 10:02:00 -0400, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:

>>>>>Pamela,

>>>>><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:l1gaa29lhocb5019p90u6css7622kfslqd@4ax.com...

>>>>>>On 27 Jun 2006 01:26:27 -0400, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>>>>>>wrote:

>>>>>>>Steve,

>>>>>>>"SDL" <sdl2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:44a0839f$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>From the Trafford web site:

>>>>>>>>"Sorry! That item is not available at this time!"

>>>>>>>>http://www.trafford.com/06-0632

>>>>>>>>What happened?

>>>>>>>See Dave Reitzes's posts below for a pretty good guess.

>>>>>>>Ken Rahn

>>>>>>And why is Ken Rahn apparently comfortable jumping to any sort of
>>>>>>conclusion regarding these posts from Reitzes which anyone can see are
>>>>>>merely trolls?  :-0

>>>>>I'm not sure that offering factual information should be considered
>>>>>trolling.
>>>>>Further, I said "pretty good guess."

>>>>>Ken Rahn

>>>>Ken,
>>>>You are far too sophisticated a scholar to consider Reitzes posts
>>>>'factual information'.  I am a bit surprised.

>>>Pamela, have you factually rebutted anything Reitzes has written? No. You
>>>pleaded with him to read the book first, then post. You, yourself, had no
>>>idea what the book contains. I also venture to think that you still don't.

>>Oh, thanks for jumping into the thread and making my point for me.
>>Reitzes has not read the book either, and yet is comfortable making
>>misstatements about Judyth and publishing them as 'fact' in such a way
>>that even Ken seems to have bought in on it.  

>>I hope I  have a good working knowledge of Judyth's statements and of
>>the environment of NOLA in the summer of 63, as I have been
>>researching them for the last year or so.  Anyone could do that
>>through the information already available.  One would have to be
>>hopelessly naive not to see the distortions Reitzes pages present.  

>>>>And yet, your support of them tends to confirm my hypothesis that the
>>>>more running around in circles that's going on about Judyth's book,
>>>>the more value it must have.

>>>More speculation without reading the book, which is essentially what
>>>you've been a critic of.

>>Indeed, I am discussing the reaction of this ng to the publication of
>>Judyth's book.  Ken has not read it, and is comfortable supporting
>>Reitzes erroneous pages.  You have at least looked at its covers and
>>have yet to post on its contents, saying that you need more time. and
>>yet you seem to have lots of time to post here...

>>Pamela :-)
>>www.in-broad-daylight.com