The Edu forum, to .John and DVP
GV
Oh, I know it sounds naive or better yet, crazy. But then all of the rest
of us wouldn't have to worry about all this nonsense with "over there they
said this" and "over there they said that", and so forth.
Wouldn't you agree this would ignite the controversial issues again? All
of them over there are regarding this forum with the two of you, and Dave
R. , as nuts. This should be a challenge, wouldn't it?
Dave, good initiative.
David Von Pein
Funny you should bring this up on this very day -- because I just re-
joined The Edu. Forum hours before seeing this aaj thread.
I'll be dipped in coincidence.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16325&view=findpost&p=199725
bobr
You will not discover the truth of who assassinated jfk at the ed
forum, quite the contrary.
j leyden
That sounds like a sentence a Judge would hand out: You are hereby
sentence to the Education Forum for a period not to exceed ____
years. Of course, you would immediately appeal.
JGL
bobr
How could you join. THis is the message that most of us get when we
try to register with that site.
[#10123] The administrator is currently not accepting new membership
registrations.
Is it some kind of elite club?
bobr
This is so bad. According to your link you are a new member.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16325&st=0&p=199725&#entry199725
But other people get this message.
[#10123] The administrator is currently not accepting new membership
registrations.ssage when they try to register
That is so bad. It was einstein who said that you cannot solve a
problem with the same thoughts processes that created the problem.
Bud
Yah, like Death Row.
Actually, it`s a bastion of retardation. Or a quagmire of
retardation. Or enclave of retardation. It`s a something of
retardation.
David Von Pein
>>> "This is the message that most of us get when we try to register with
that site -- [#10123] "The administrator is currently not accepting new
membership registrations"." <<<
Yeah, I noticed that too (when I tried to sign up without e-mailing
John Simkin first).
Evidently you've got to contact the site owner (Simkin) first. He will
then "register" you. That's what I did yesterday, and John S.
registered me immediately.
You can e-mail Simkin at:
john.simkin ["at" sign goes here] ntlworld.com
GV
Well, there you go, indeed a coincidence, David. Nice to see you there!
Peter Fokes
How nice to see David VP's picture! Well for a little while anyway.
Did you remove it and replace it with JFK, David?
You look much younger than me ....
Here I am ..
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=3596
Why so shy, David? You don't look anything like JFK!
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
GV
:-) Hehe, well you may be right but sometimes, admittedly, there are
some interesting discussions.
bobr
Thanks dave for you reply. My comment is not directed at you in any
way.
The message that people on the internet get does not say to email john
smkin to register.
The message that is publicly published is
[#10123] The administrator is currently not accepting new membership
registrations.
It looks like a place where you have to know the secret password to
get in. As I said, you will never discover the truth of the jfk
assassination at that forum.
Bud
Hey David, good to see you back stirring up the retards on the Education
Forum. It`s unbelievable the type of responses your return is generating.
One stupid idea after another offered, they`ve created this image of
Oswald and just plug in everything into this mythical creation. A lot of
things said in the one post you started about Oswald`s room had me shaking
my head, but this one by Bernie Laverick has to be the topper...
"Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them.
if not they wouldn`t be patsies, would they?"
Mind-numbingly retarded on many different levels. How can you tell
innocent people from guilty people if not by incriminating evidence (in
fact, it seems the incriminating evidence is seen as an indicator of
Oswald`s innocence)? Who carries things that they don`t know the "whys"
about? Oswald was taken alive, why isn`t he making any effort to set the
record straight about this incriminating evidence he is caught with? This
kooks just have a flawed way of looking at things, and nothing anyone can
do is going to change that.
David Von Pein
>>> "A lot of things said in the one post you started about Oswald`s room
had me shaking my head, but this one by Bernie Laverick has to be the
topper ..."Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on
them. If not they wouldn`t be patsies, would they?" .... Mind-numbingly
retarded on many different levels." <<<
Yes, indeed, Bud.
And here was my response to Bernie's comment:
"Oh, sure. And the police in the Texas Theater just shoved the S&W
.38 into Oswald's hands in the theater and whispered to him -- "Hey, Lee,
would you be kind enough to go along with this patsy plot we're
undertaking today, and take this gun and act like you want to shoot a
bunch of us cops with it? How 'bout it, buddy? Will you help us out with
this thing? I'll buy you a beer (or a Dr. Pepper) if you do." " -- DVP
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200041
David Von Pein
>>> "How nice to see David VP's picture! Well for a little while anyway.
Did you remove it and replace it with JFK, David?" <<<
No. I put the JFK picture in my PROFILE there, but that's different from
the avatar that appears next to my posts.
Bud
> >>> "A lot of things said in the one post you started about Oswald`s room
>
> had me shaking my head, but this one by Bernie Laverick has to be the
> topper ..."Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on
> them. If not they wouldn`t be patsies, would they?" .... Mind-numbingly
> retarded on many different levels." <<<
>
> Yes, indeed, Bud.
I see you transferred my remarks over there. Interesting that you
can get away with quoting me calling them retards, but can`t call them
retards yourself. Insult by proxy. I wouldn`t mind tangling with them
myself there, but thats impossible since I don`t show up on film.
BTW, since Jim D is calling you "Davey", I suggest you consider
calling him "Jimmy" (or even "Jimmie", slightly more demeaning).
Interesting that when you stated that Oswald was caught red-handed
with the gun, JimD said "I just named 17 anomalies or breaks in the
evidence that mitigate against the above conclusion". How do you
mitigate against reality, it`s a fact Oswald was caught with that gun,
not a "conclusion". He ignores that you solidly debunked at least half
of his list. And since when do you need every piece of evidence with
no breaks to determine what occurred? If this is the requirement,
nobody would be convicted. In how many murder cases do the police
determine where the murderer bought his bullets? Isn`t this just
trivia, what difference could it possibly make?
> And here was my response to Bernie's comment:
>
> "Oh, sure. And the police in the Texas Theater just shoved the S&W
> .38 into Oswald's hands in the theater and whispered to him -- "Hey, Lee,
> would you be kind enough to go along with this patsy plot we're
> undertaking today, and take this gun and act like you want to shoot a
> bunch of us cops with it? How 'bout it, buddy? Will you help us out with
> this thing? I'll buy you a beer (or a Dr. Pepper) if you do." " -- DVP
Yah, they offer the idea that McDonald thrust the handgun onto
Oswald. You`d think that might be something he would mention in
custody ("Hey Fritz, how come your cop shoved a gun down my pants?")
And McDonald knew he would be the cop who happened to be the first cop
to confront Oswald (remember he stopped to check out some other
patrons before Oswald, what if some other cop who didn`t have a gun to
plant on Oswald got to him first?-- Or did they all carry guns to
plant?). Stupid, stupid thinking.
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=find...
Dave Reitzes
John has his own forum to run, so I wouldn't blame him for spending
his time here, rather than there.
OTOH, since I recently began posting there, traffic to my website is
WAAAY up.
Dave
GV
No, certainly not. And I can appreciate that.
My thought was that since Edu is so heavily overweight by CTers, the
discussions would be a whole lot more interesting - and possibly
fruitful - if some of those who are among the best informed LNers also
participated over there. Which I think is now confirmed by yours and
DVPs appearances over there...:-)
bobr
The conversation would be a whole lot more interesting if they would
not silence the newer researchers with new investigations.
There is no bell shaped curve under which the evidence lies. Only in
the minds of jaded researchers is there such a bell shaped curve of
ideas.