Jeff Morley Won't Let Me Comment on JFKFacts

[John McAdams]

Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's
JFKFacts site.

They were not approved. They still have not been approved. Many more
recent comments have been approved.

So I wrote him, asking "Why are my comments not being approved?"

And adding "perhaps there is some explanation."

After a few days, and no response, I wrote him again, saying I
deserved an explanation.

He agreed, and then didn't provide any.

Finally, he said:

<quote on>

John, for a man with deserved reputation for rudeness and recent
professional rebuke for uncivil behavior, you are mighty quick to
demand respect. Excuse me for ungenerously ignoring your imperious
tone.

I recently suffered a serious injury to my Achilles tendon. The
Comments Editor submitted his resignation. I have not picked a
successor. The Comments section has suffered as a result.

That is the explanation I owe you.

<quote off>

In the first place, somehow, in spite of his injury, he has managed to
approve many comments. But none of mine.

As for "rude:" anybody looking at JFK Facts can see that Jeff's
moderators have routinely approved very nasty comments directed at
lone assassin people.

We have routinely been accused of being CIA stooges.

It seems Morley has turned into a bitter buff. Bitter buffs are
people who not only believe in a conspiracy, they believe that
everybody else *must* believe in a conspiracy. They believe that if
enough people believe in a conspiracy the evil conspirators will be
discovered and virtue will return to this Republic

Thus people who disagree with conspiracy are not merely people with a
different opinion, they are evil heretics.

This is the same thing we get from the "global warming" crowd. People
who express skepticism must not merely be argued with, they must be
punished and shut up:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming+fascism

If allowed to spread their evil heresy, they will destroy the planet.

This sort of thing is hardly a recipe for civil debate.

Morley seems to have joined the rather large number of people running
JFK forums who ban people with whom they disagree.

We know this first hand here, since those banned people come here!

We allow posts that most people consider silly and stupid, since the
danger of rejecting such posts exceeds any gains from a more "sober"
discussion.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Paul Jones]

I too have noticed Morely's temperamental streak in his interviews. Just
chalk it up as one of his peculiarities.

[Steve Barber]

Hi .John,

I feel your frustration. There does seem to be a lot of this going
around, especially of late. Other than this newsgroup and one forum, I
stay away from discussions. They're no longer a place to discuss, it
seems to me to be more of a contest to see who can humiliate whom in the
first few exchanges as soon as there is a disagreement. I have always
seen Morley as nothing more than a scowling sour puss whom I have zero
respect for, so this doesn't surprise me. Hopefully-- but I wouldn't hold
my breath-- Morley will come around.

Steve

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, this is just typical Hypocrisy from the censor in chief, who
refuses to post message here because they suggest conspiracy.

[Bud]

<snicker> After 50 years of effort the conspiracy hobbyists have finally
reached a point where they can suggest there was a conspiracy.

[Marcus Hanson]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 11:41:59 AM UTC+10, John McAdams wrote:
> Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's
> JFKFacts site.
>
> They were not approved. They still have not been approved. Many more
> recent comments have been approved.
>

You can be brusque - no crime there - but you are never rude.

I have corresponded with Jeff three or four times and found him to be
unfailingly civil,even though I have never hidden my LN beliefs from him.
As I once told him when I wrote in support of his suspicions about
Joannides: "I see no dichotomy in being an LN,yet still not swallowing
everything that protects government agencies."

It seems to me that whilst Jeff *suspects* foul play,he's hardly Charles
Drago! I am surprised and disappointed if he is moving in that direction.

Your piece on Global Warming was spot-on.
When did the term "Climate Change" come to replace it?

Was it in 2009,just before the UN conference was held in Copenhagen.....in
six feet of snow ??!

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

What a silly post.

As anyone reading this newsgroup can plainly see, there isn't a shred of
truth to your absurd and false claim that posts suggesting a conspiracy
are not allowed to be posted.

There are not only posts here suggesting a conspiracy; there are posts
here stating as a fact that a conspiracy occurred. Many of them by you.

[Bud]

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

> Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's
> JFKFacts site.
>
> They were not approved. They still have not been approved. Many more
> recent comments have been approved.
>
> So I wrote him, asking "Why are my comments not being approved?"
>
> And adding "perhaps there is some explanation."
>
> After a few days, and no response, I wrote him again, saying I
> deserved an explanation.
>
> He agreed, and then didn't provide any.
>
> Finally, he said:
>
> <quote on>
>
> John, for a man with deserved reputation for rudeness and recent
> professional rebuke for uncivil behavior, you are mighty quick to
> demand respect. Excuse me for ungenerously ignoring your imperious
> tone.
>
> I recently suffered a serious injury to my Achilles tendon.

Seems the kind of injury that would put you off your feet in front of
your computer.

> The
> Comments Editor submitted his resignation.

Left to join the OIC.

> I have not picked a
> successor.

Throw your hat in the ring, .John!

>The Comments section has suffered as a result.
>
> That is the explanation I owe you.
>
> <quote off>
>
> In the first place, somehow, in spite of his injury, he has managed to
> approve many comments. But none of mine.
>
> As for "rude:" anybody looking at JFK Facts can see that Jeff's
> moderators have routinely approved very nasty comments directed at
> lone assassin people.
>
> We have routinely been accused of being CIA stooges.
>
> It seems Morley has turned into a bitter buff. Bitter buffs are
> people who not only believe in a conspiracy, they believe that
> everybody else *must* believe in a conspiracy. They believe that if
> enough people believe in a conspiracy the evil conspirators will be
> discovered and virtue will return to this Republic

> Thus people who disagree with conspiracy are not merely people with a
> different opinion, they are evil heretics.

They believe that you, personally, are preventing JFK`s killers from
being brought to justice.

Don`t think you aren`t at risk from one of these wingnuts getting
themselves wound up and deciding to act out.

> This is the same thing we get from the "global warming" crowd. People
> who express skepticism must not merely be argued with, they must be
> punished and shut up:

The left hates free speech. They might hear something that upsets them.

> http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming+fascism
>
> If allowed to spread their evil heresy, they will destroy the planet.
>
> This sort of thing is hardly a recipe for civil debate.
>
> Morley seems to have joined the rather large number of people running
> JFK forums who ban people with whom they disagree.
>
> We know this first hand here, since those banned people come here!
>
> We allow posts that most people consider silly and stupid, since the
> danger of rejecting such posts exceeds any gains from a more "sober"
> discussion.

If you start disallowing the silly and stupid you`d have no traffic at
all. It would be like running a football group without being able to talk
about scores or stats.


> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

I must admit that you allow more LN kooks to comment here and to insult
the CTs constantly. Definitely a bipartisan atmosphere.

Chris

[Pamela Brown]

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:52:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Tsk, tsk, Anthony. This is McAdams' forum after all. And he has to put
up with us...or, well...you, too...:-)

[Pamela Brown]

Priceless, McAdams. Pot calling the kettle black! :-)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/30/2016 10:59 AM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 11:41:59 AM UTC+10, John McAdams wrote:
>> Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's
>> JFKFacts site.
>>
>> They were not approved. They still have not been approved. Many more
>> recent comments have been approved.
>>
>
> You can be brusque - no crime there - but you are never rude.
>
> I have corresponded with Jeff three or four times and found him to be
> unfailingly civil,even though I have never hidden my LN beliefs from him.
> As I once told him when I wrote in support of his suspicions about
> Joannides: "I see no dichotomy in being an LN,yet still not swallowing
> everything that protects government agencies."
>

Why should the whole government topple just to protect one crook?
Watergate anyone?

> It seems to me that whilst Jeff *suspects* foul play,he's hardly Charles
> Drago! I am surprised and disappointed if he is moving in that direction.
>
> Your piece on Global Warming was spot-on.
> When did the term "Climate Change" come to replace it?
>
> Was it in 2009,just before the UN conference was held in Copenhagen.....in
> six feet of snow ??!
>

You seem confused. Maybe you should watch some of those scary science
fiction movies about climate change like The Day After Tomorrow (2004).
Extreme cold is one of the problems caused by Global Warming. Also
droughts and flood and hurricanes. Down South and in Middle America they
have severe flooding while up North we can't get any rain.

[Anthony Marsh]

We already proved it, but you were in a coma.

[Anthony Marsh]

Gee, I wonder if it could be a reaction to the constant personal attacks
from the Trolls?

[Bud]

<snicker> Prove it.

[claviger]

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 8:41:59 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

Liberals believe in situational ethics. "The End Justifies The Means" is
at the core of their belief system. They have no affection for Logic or
Consistency or Equitability if any of those concepts prove awkward.
Sandy and a couple of other Liberals on this Newsgroup are notable
exceptions, by no means typical of Liberal mentality. Conservative ethics
makes slaves to Logic and Commonsense.

As for Jefferson Morley I have admiration for his courage and
determination to sue the US Government (CIA) for release all remaining
documents. Very brave thing to do along with his teammates. Kudos to all
of them. My guess is one day they will be shocked and disappointed when
they finally read those documents. The most Liberal President in US
history now sits in the Oval Office and with a stroke of his magic pen can
authorize the release of those documents as a going away gift to all CTs
on the planet Earth. The only thing standing in the way of that historic
event is approval by the Kennedy family.

I have a feeling that last hurdle won't be removed anytime soon and
predict an extension of the Top Secret classification for at least another
decade. This from an extremely Progressive Administration. Sorry, no
progress for CTs and maybe not in their lifetime.

As for the JFKfacts website it is interesting reading but not exactly a
level playing field. Given that home field advantage not sure why Morley
is so intimidated by Professor McAdams. I wonder why such an outspoken
critic of the WCR has never ventured into the US Open of all JFK websites,
the international Newsgroup free-for-all we engage in everyday of the
year. Why does anything Professor McAdams have to say threaten all the CT
intellectuals on Morley's selective blog? What are they afraid of?

[Robert Harris]

John, I would love to feel sorry for ya, but after being
booted out of nutter, McCrae's forum twice and two different
Facebook groups, run by nutter fanatics, I just have a hard
time doing that.

I do recall however, that Morley allowed you to post an
argument against my 285 analysis in his group. Why have you
never followed up on it here?

Is it possible that you didn't have a lot of faith in Michael
Russ, who cherry picked a few witnesses who were ambiguous
about the timing of the shots, and pretended that they
represented the general consensus?

Other than just blurting out unsupported denials now and
then, that was the ONLY argument you ever presented in over
20 years.

Since you have never retracted it, I must presume that you
still think it is legitimate. So, why did you stop talking
about it?

Aren't you interested in defending your "rebuttal", John?




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Black Kettles Matter!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/30/2016 10:48 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:

Not exactly. He doesn't put up with me. He censors me. And it is supposed
to be OUR newsgroup, not his. Ask where all the other moderators have
gone. At least he has some knowledge of the subject matter.

[Jason Burke]

Sure, Tony. Sure. Oh, are you basing your fantasy on the "acoustical
evidence"?

The "acoustical evidence" that was shown to be neither at Dealey Plaza
nor at the time of the assassination?

THAT evidence?

Hilarious!

[Jason Burke]

On 8/31/2016 8:17 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John, I would love to feel sorry for ya, but after being booted out of
> nutter, McCrae's forum twice and two different Facebook groups, run by
> nutter fanatics, I just have a hard time doing that.
>
> I do recall however, that Morley allowed you to post an argument against
> my 285 analysis in his group. Why have you never followed up on it here?

Awww. Harris isn't becoming famous. You should talk to Raff* about that.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Why and how should John - who it seems lets you post here with no more
restrictions than he has on any other person - be held accountable for the
actions of someone else who you believe mistreated you?

Did John play any role in the decisions of others? Nowhere do you say so.

We all engage in some petty bickering here (I plead guilty to it) but this
is about as small minded thinking as one can get. I'm criticizing your
thinking not you.

BTW, it's MacRae not McCrae.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/31/2016 11:17 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John, I would love to feel sorry for ya, but after being booted out of
> nutter, McCrae's forum twice and two different Facebook groups, run by
> nutter fanatics, I just have a hard time doing that.
>
> I do recall however, that Morley allowed you to post an argument against
> my 285 analysis in his group. Why have you never followed up on it here?
>

He was too embarrassed.

> Is it possible that you didn't have a lot of faith in Michael Russ, who
> cherry picked a few witnesses who were ambiguous about the timing of the
> shots, and pretended that they represented the general consensus?
>

Is that even a real person?

> Other than just blurting out unsupported denials now and then, that was
> the ONLY argument you ever presented in over 20 years.
>

Maybe he deleted all my messages so you wouldn't see how I demolished
your silly theory.

> Since you have never retracted it, I must presume that you still think
> it is legitimate. So, why did you stop talking about it?
>

Yeah, why did we stop talking about the driver did it theory?
Do you even know what century we are in?

> Aren't you interested in defending your "rebuttal", John?
>

I didn't see any rebuttal. Maybe he deleted it.

[Anthony Marsh]

HSCA 1978. You prove my point.

[claviger]

If Professor McAdams is the founder and moderator of this Newsgroup how
does it become OUR newsgroup? You can approach Google to start a NG of
your own and they would assume you will be head moderator because it was
your idea. If approved they expect you to establish and enforce the ROC,
obviously a reflection of your personal values and rules. So in effect it
would be your Newsgroup even though technically Google is the owner.

The NG should reflect the personality of the founder. If you don't like
the simple ROC on this NG then start your own. What free market
competition is all about. As a socialist I know you hate free market
competition, but your style might attract a following.

Liberal is just a short word for Control Freak so you would have to guard
against your natural instinct to go berserk on anyone that doesn't agree
with you. In fact it may help to have a quota on how many times you
overuse the word Nazi. I think 50 times per person is reasonable, since
you have pretty much worn out that invective on this NG.

Good luck being an entrepreneur. I expect to be Nazified on your very
Newsgroup for speaking truth to power, but that's OK. I'm used to it by
now.

[BOZ]

Why don't you challenge him to a debate? Tom Rossley could be the
moderator.

[BOZ]

Achilles tendon. Morley put his foot in his mouth again?

[BOZ]

Global warming is the greatest hoax in history.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/31/2016 10:04 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:

> Got any rain yet, Anthony?
>


About a thousandth of an inch this morning. We may get the remnants of
Hermine late Sunday night.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. I have always believed in the same pattern of shots. It's just that
the acoustical evidence gave me the exact timing of the shots and verified
the locations of the shooters.

> The "acoustical evidence" that was shown to be neither at Dealey Plaza
> nor at the time of the assassination?
>

Wrong. i rebutted that phony report.

> THAT evidence?
>
> Hilarious!
>

Hubris is not evidence.

>

[Jason Burke]

MODERATOR! THAT WULD MAEK ROSSLEEY PRAUD!

[Bud]

And the name of Oswald`s co-conspirator was given as...?

> You prove my point.

Prove it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me. You know nothing about this newsgroup. You know nothing about
how UseNet works. McAdams was not the founder of this newsgroup. He was
just another poster like you. We had 3 other moderators. Then McAdams
staged a coup d'etat and took over as the sole moderator. No one here is
old enough to even remember the names of the other moderators. Read the
rules.

> does it become OUR newsgroup? You can approach Google to start a NG of
> your own and they would assume you will be head moderator because it was
> your idea. If approved they expect you to establish and enforce the ROC,

Usenet not Google. Google only carries the newsgroups. They are UseNet
newsgroups and supposed to follow the UseNet guidelines. If you pretend to
know how to use Google, Google USENET and read the rules.

> obviously a reflection of your personal values and rules. So in effect it

A UseNet newsgroup is not supposed to reflect anyone's personal values and
rules. It is supposed to be neutral and open to all to express their
views. But of course some trolls try to violate the rules and ruins
newsgroups like this one.

> would be your Newsgroup even though technically Google is the owner.

Google is not the owner.
They only carry some newsgroups.

>
> The NG should reflect the personality of the founder. If you don't like

That's very stupid. This is not supposed to be a cult.
This is supposed to be an open discussion group.

> the simple ROC on this NG then start your own. What free market

I seem to remember some kook who did that and left this newsgroup and set
up his own, because he was being censored all the time. So how did that
go? Does ANYONE post there at all? All he did was play dictator to push
HIS kook theory. At least McAdams doesn't do that, but he makes it clear
that he is a WC defender. We prefer NOT to call him a Lone Nutter any
more. And he does use his real name HERE. I've spoken to him in person and
KNOW who he is.

I know who some of the trolls are and have spoken to some of them in
person, but Trolls like to use alias so that their friends and family
won't be embarrassed by the stupid things they say.

> competition is all about. As a socialist I know you hate free market
> competition, but your style might attract a following.
>

Well, McAdams lets you get away with slander like that because you are
one of his minions. I am not a Socialist. I believe in a much more
dangerous political system. It's called Democracy.

> Liberal is just a short word for Control Freak so you would have to guard

I guess it's not slander now that JFK is dead and not here to defend
himself. He was proud to call himself a Liberal and defined it. Look it
up on Google if you can figure out how to use Google.
I call myself a Liberal only to annoy the Nazis. My friends know me as a
Progressive, but I can't explain what that means to a Nazi.

> against your natural instinct to go berserk on anyone that doesn't agree
> with you. In fact it may help to have a quota on how many times you

You haven't seen me go berserk.

We have rules here. I can't say what I really want to say. I have to
moderate my language or my messages will just get deleted. Sometimes I
have to reply to the same message several times, trying different wording
to see what makes it past the censor. Sometimes I try big words or foreign
words which I know that he won't know and tell slip through.

> overuse the word Nazi. I think 50 times per person is reasonable, since
> you have pretty much worn out that invective on this NG.
>

You think I've only used the word Nazi here 50 times? Maybe you meant 50
times in one message. Or you're just new here. As I explained hundreds
of times before, I stopped using the word Fascist and changed it to Nazi
because so many uneducated people did not know what a Fascist is. They
thought it only refers to Franco.

> Good luck being an entrepreneur. I expect to be Nazified on your very

Why would I want to be an entrepreneur? I'm not a crook.

> Newsgroup for speaking truth to power, but that's OK. I'm used to it by

I don't have my own Newsgroup. I had a blog, but the company shut down.
And you wouldn't have even understood the Reverse Puppet Stayman Convention.
Google THAT.

> now.
>

[John McAdams]

On 2 Sep 2016 23:12:43 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 9/2/2016 12:05 AM, claviger wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>Excuse me. You know nothing about this newsgroup. You know nothing about
>how UseNet works. McAdams was not the founder of this newsgroup. He was
>just another poster like you. We had 3 other moderators. Then McAdams
>staged a coup d'etat and took over as the sole moderator. No one here is
>old enough to even remember the names of the other moderators. Read the
>rules.
>

No coup, Tony. Some moderators got burned out and resigned, and Peter
Fokes (after several years of very good work) got tired and
disappeared.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical that you would make fun of an injury.
That's what Trump would do.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Hoax? Please.

Maybe they have the science wrong (their models seem to show it). But to
claim that all of the people KNOW that there's no warming but are
perpetrating a hoax is to travel into Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison territory.

How would they get all of these scientists to go along with the deception?

[John McAdams]

People who say "hoax" are using the term loosely. Maybe irresponsibly
loosely.

If one considers things like "group think," and "confirmation bias"
and "careerism" and the way political ideology can corrupt science and
the way government involvement can corrupt science (think Lysenko), we
don't need to posit any global warming conspiracy.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

https://youtu.be/QwviDPo4Rh4

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say that Oswald had a co-conspirator.
I said he was framed.

>> You prove my point.
>
> Prove it.
>

You just did.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The word hoax for me (and I think most people) implies deception, a
willful fraud such as Piltdown man or the MMR vaccine-autism link. Not
self-deception but deliberate deception of others.

John: we have scientists in a dozen-and one major fields - planetary
science, earth science, atmospheric science, ocean science, climate
science et cetera - and many minor ones and scientists from dozens of
countries over several decades who largely agree that human activity is
causing a warming of the planet. My favorite source on this is Anthony
Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.

You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
severe - how much warming - will occur.

Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
is flawed); certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
capture" that's occurred.

But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.

Too much blabbering from me.

[Anthony Marsh]

OMG! You finally admitted how you took over this newsgroup. You were not
the founder as your minions tried to claim.

Tell them also how you used their proxies to arbitrarily delete messages.
Why not also tell them about your e-mail group behind the scenes where you
coach your minions on how to bait people.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[John McAdams]

On 3 Sep 2016 13:25:51 -0400, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:14:41 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2016 09:07:38 -0400, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:41:01 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>> >> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:41:59 PM UTC-3, John McAdams wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Global warming is the greatest hoax in history.
>> >
>> >Hoax? Please.
>> >
>> >Maybe they have the science wrong (their models seem to show it). But to
>> >claim that all of the people KNOW that there's no warming but are
>> >perpetrating a hoax is to travel into Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison territory.
>> >
>> >How would they get all of these scientists to go along with the deception?
>> >
>>
>> People who say "hoax" are using the term loosely. Maybe irresponsibly
>> loosely.
>>
>> If one considers things like "group think," and "confirmation bias"
>> and "careerism" and the way political ideology can corrupt science and
>> the way government involvement can corrupt science (think Lysenko), we
>> don't need to posit any global warming conspiracy.
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>The word hoax for me (and I think most people) implies deception, a
>willful fraud such as Piltdown man or the MMR vaccine-autism link. Not
>self-deception but deliberate deception of others.
>

I'm not sure the "vaccine-autism link" is a willful fraud.

It started with a real peer reviewed article in a prestigious medical
journal. But it turns out the article was simply wrong.

I tend to view people who believe it as sincere, if badly misguided.

>John: we have scientists in a dozen-and one major fields - planetary
>science, earth science, atmospheric science, ocean science, climate
>science et cetera - and many minor ones and scientists from dozens of
>countries over several decades who largely agree that human activity is
>causing a warming of the planet.

But since the vast majority of those people are not climate
scientists, that just means they are going along with what is
fashionable.

Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
different in the past, and may well say something different in the
future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.

Skepticism is not allowed.

>My favorite source on this is Anthony
>Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
>he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.
>

I saw him at a Heartland Institute conference last summer.

>You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
>severe - how much warming - will occur.
>

One class of skeptics are "luke warmers:" people who believe in some
man-made warming, but don't believe the magnitude will be
catastrophic.

Scientific American recently published an article taking this
position:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

>Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
>been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
>is flawed);

True. Any finding that supports the dominant paradigm won't get
really close scrutiny.

And the problem is worse when the people doing the reviewing are
strongly attached to a political position, and the paper in question
supports that position.

>certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
>accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
>capture" that's occurred.
>
>But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.
>

I agree.

I would not say "fraud." I would say "moral panic."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 3 Sep 2016 13:27:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 9/2/2016 11:16 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 2 Sep 2016 23:12:43 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2016 12:05 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>> Excuse me. You know nothing about this newsgroup. You know nothing about
>>> how UseNet works. McAdams was not the founder of this newsgroup. He was
>>> just another poster like you. We had 3 other moderators. Then McAdams
>>> staged a coup d'etat and took over as the sole moderator. No one here is
>>> old enough to even remember the names of the other moderators. Read the
>>> rules.
>>>
>>
>> No coup, Tony. Some moderators got burned out and resigned, and Peter
>> Fokes (after several years of very good work) got tired and
>> disappeared.
>>
>
>OMG! You finally admitted how you took over this newsgroup.

Right, Tony, I went to Toronto and shot Peter Fokes.

>You were not
>the founder as your minions tried to claim.
>

Yes, Russ Burr and I founded this newsgroup.

>Tell them also how you used their proxies to arbitrarily delete messages.

A certain poster, when we had three moderators, submitted a very large
number of abusive posts.

We moderators got swamped trying to moderate all of them, since all
three moderators had to agree on rejection.

So we agreed there would be an "idiots" list of people who were so
abusive that the moderator on duty would be free to summarily delete
any message from these people he or she felt to be abusive.

>Why not also tell them about your e-mail group behind the scenes where you
>coach your minions on how to bait people.
>

No such e-mail group, Tony.

I know it's useless to try to tell you anything.

For years you have been insisting binaries can't be posted on this
group.

I've told you they can. You refused to believe me.

A few months ago, you posted a binary. It appeared just fine.

But then recently you've gone back to saying that binaries can't be
posted on the group.

You are hopeless.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BOZ]

A Hidell?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/3/2016 9:14 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2016 09:07:38 -0400, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:41:01 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:41:59 PM UTC-3, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Global warming is the greatest hoax in history.
>>
>> Hoax? Please.
>>
>> Maybe they have the science wrong (their models seem to show it). But to
>> claim that all of the people KNOW that there's no warming but are
>> perpetrating a hoax is to travel into Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison territory.
>>
>> How would they get all of these scientists to go along with the deception?
>>
>
> People who say "hoax" are using the term loosely. Maybe irresponsibly
> loosely.
>

OMG! Are you saying that you believe in Global Warming? Say it ain't so,
Joe. You're supposed to be a rightwinger and now you're coming out today
as a Gore Liberal?

> If one considers things like "group think," and "confirmation bias"
> and "careerism" and the way political ideology can corrupt science and
> the way government involvement can corrupt science (think Lysenko), we
> don't need to posit any global warming conspiracy.
>

I think most people are confused about what Global warming means.
It doesn't mean that your city is getting warmer every day, although in
some places that is true.

It means the AVERAGE temperature of the whole plant is increasing year
by year and the RATE of increase is getting faster recently.

But the effects can be at both extremes. Right now we have severe
flooding down south and droughts in the north.

My friend just came back from Norway and the glaciers are disappearing. So
is that GOOD or BAD? I don't think many skiing developers want the
glaciers for skiing. Maybe real estate developers would be happy to have
new land to build on. What is GOOD for one person may be BAD for another.
We need the rain for our crops, but crops don't like flooding. The word is
BALANCE. Our planet is going out of BALANCE.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[bigdog]

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 12:41:01 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:

I don't doubt that climate change is occurring. It has been going on for
4.5 billion years. It would be odd if it were to suddenly stop. I also
don't doubt that man might be a contributing factor but hardly the most
significant one. There are so many things that affect our climate and man
is just a small part of that equation. The earth has been going through
warming and cooling periods for as long as it has been revolving around
the sun. Sea levels have risen and fallen. The face of the globe is
constantly changing. It's the natural order of things. Instead of getting
our shorts in a wad about it we should be using our brains to adapt to the
changing forces of nature.

[Bud]

The source you cited did. HSCA 1978. Who did they say conspired with
Oswald?

> I said he was framed.

Based on what?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/3/2016 1:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2016 13:27:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2016 11:16 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 2 Sep 2016 23:12:43 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/2016 12:05 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me. You know nothing about this newsgroup. You know nothing about
>>>> how UseNet works. McAdams was not the founder of this newsgroup. He was
>>>> just another poster like you. We had 3 other moderators. Then McAdams
>>>> staged a coup d'etat and took over as the sole moderator. No one here is
>>>> old enough to even remember the names of the other moderators. Read the
>>>> rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No coup, Tony. Some moderators got burned out and resigned, and Peter
>>> Fokes (after several years of very good work) got tired and
>>> disappeared.
>>>
>>
>> OMG! You finally admitted how you took over this newsgroup.
>
> Right, Tony, I went to Toronto and shot Peter Fokes.
>

I didn't say. It was a bloodless coup.
What did you do with Barb? Did you retire her?

>> You were not
>> the founder as your minions tried to claim.
>>
>
> Yes, Russ Burr and I founded this newsgroup.
>

Sure, so they were half right. What happened to Burr?
Did you shoot him in a duel? (vague historical reference)

>
>> Tell them also how you used their proxies to arbitrarily delete messages.
>
> A certain poster, when we had three moderators, submitted a very large
> number of abusive posts.
>

Maybe that was my plan all the time. To wear you out.

> We moderators got swamped trying to moderate all of them, since all
> three moderators had to agree on rejection.
>

Why not tell the truth for once? Tell them about the proxies.

> So we agreed there would be an "idiots" list of people who were so
> abusive that the moderator on duty would be free to summarily delete
> any message from these people he or she felt to be abusive.
>

Tell them who was first on the list.
Summarily is what Dictators do.

>> Why not also tell them about your e-mail group behind the scenes where you
>> coach your minions on how to bait people.
>>
>
> No such e-mail group, Tony.
>

RSS feed?

> I know it's useless to try to tell you anything.
>

Especially when I have the files.

> For years you have been insisting binaries can't be posted on this
> group.
>
> I've told you they can. You refused to believe me.
>
> A few months ago, you posted a binary. It appeared just fine.
>

Once out of hundreds of attempts. It has to rely on your acquiescence.

> But then recently you've gone back to saying that binaries can't be
> posted on the group.
>

I've tried to post binaries only to have you reject them.
That is one reason why I bought my own Web site, so that I can link to
the binaries that you can't touch or delete.

> You are hopeless.
>

You think you have the right to censor.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

We have a different term for that Kookery.

> It started with a real peer reviewed article in a prestigious medical
> journal. But it turns out the article was simply wrong.
>

Is that anything like Trump's doctor?

> I tend to view people who believe it as sincere, if badly misguided.
>

I just call them kooks. Even sadder if they are rightwing nuts.
Paranoid about the government creating AIDS at Fort Detrict.

>> John: we have scientists in a dozen-and one major fields - planetary
>> science, earth science, atmospheric science, ocean science, climate
>> science et cetera - and many minor ones and scientists from dozens of
>> countries over several decades who largely agree that human activity is
>> causing a warming of the planet.
>
> But since the vast majority of those people are not climate
> scientists, that just means they are going along with what is
> fashionable.
>

Well, if you have 99% of scientists saying that Global Warming is real
and 99% of Republicans saying that Global Warming is a hoax created by
all Gore, doesn't that tell you something?

> Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
> what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
> different in the past, and may well say something different in the
> future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
>

Sometimes it is and has been.

> Skepticism is not allowed.
>

Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
Like the Amazing Randy forum.

>
>> My favorite source on this is Anthony
>> Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
>> he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.
>>
>
> I saw him at a Heartland Institute conference last summer.
>
>> You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
>> severe - how much warming - will occur.
>>
>
> One class of skeptics are "luke warmers:" people who believe in some
> man-made warming, but don't believe the magnitude will be
> catastrophic.
>

One group of LNers call themselves non-conspiracies instead of WC
defenders. They are too smart to fall for the WC lies, but believe
Oswald did it alone. I'd like to see how they explain how Oswald could
wound Kennedy and Connally separately without any Single Bullet Theory.
Kooks can't defend it.

> Scientific American recently published an article taking this
> position:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
>

Yeah, so what? Because it's only going to be our grandchildren who are
going to be injured that that absolve the current generation of any
responsibility.
If you poison someone and he doesn't die for 25 years is that OK?

>
>> Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
>> been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
>> is flawed);
>
> True. Any finding that supports the dominant paradigm won't get
> really close scrutiny.
>

Something like that.

> And the problem is worse when the people doing the reviewing are
> strongly attached to a political position, and the paper in question
> supports that position.
>

You mean like the NAS?

>
>> certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
>> accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
>> capture" that's occurred.
>>
>> But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> I would not say "fraud." I would say "moral panic."
>

It's one thing to BELIEVE something, but another thing to PROMOTE it.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/3/2016 1:25 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:14:41 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2016 09:07:38 -0400, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:41:01 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:41:59 PM UTC-3, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Global warming is the greatest hoax in history.
>>>
>>> Hoax? Please.
>>>
>>> Maybe they have the science wrong (their models seem to show it). But to
>>> claim that all of the people KNOW that there's no warming but are
>>> perpetrating a hoax is to travel into Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison territory.
>>>
>>> How would they get all of these scientists to go along with the deception?
>>>
>>
>> People who say "hoax" are using the term loosely. Maybe irresponsibly
>> loosely.
>>
>> If one considers things like "group think," and "confirmation bias"
>> and "careerism" and the way political ideology can corrupt science and
>> the way government involvement can corrupt science (think Lysenko), we
>> don't need to posit any global warming conspiracy.
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> The word hoax for me (and I think most people) implies deception, a
> willful fraud such as Piltdown man or the MMR vaccine-autism link. Not

IN some cases it is just outright fraud, but in other cases it is simply
ignorance.

> self-deception but deliberate deception of others.
>

Some kooks really believe the Single Bullet Theory.

> John: we have scientists in a dozen-and one major fields - planetary
> science, earth science, atmospheric science, ocean science, climate
> science et cetera - and many minor ones and scientists from dozens of
> countries over several decades who largely agree that human activity is
> causing a warming of the planet. My favorite source on this is Anthony
> Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
> he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.
>

Except for the millions of deaths and extinct of species. But it won't
affect the profit margins that much.

> You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
> severe - how much warming - will occur.
>
> Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
> been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
> is flawed); certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
> accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
> capture" that's occurred.
>
> But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.
>
> Too much blabbering from me.
>

But I love your blabbering. Pleas keep exposing your ignorance for all
to see.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Is your argument that Oswald was framed by the four man sniper team on the
Grassy Knoll?

You've repeatedly said that it was just that: a sniper team. And that the
others went along to prevent WWIII.

So again: this four man team sent by Helms planted the rifle and shells
and other evidence?

[Bud]

<snicker> Conspiracy hobbyists like to imagine shadowy groups engaged in
nefarious activity.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Morley bans you from his site but Marsh uses it to attack you.

The same person who is often complaining about Nazis suppressing his
speech.

You're not surprised but I am still amazed.

[claviger]

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:12:44 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/2/2016 12:05 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> >>>> Well, this is just typical Hypocrisy from the censor in chief, who
> >>>> refuses to post message here because they suggest conspiracy.
> >>>
> >>> Tsk, tsk, Anthony. This is McAdams' forum after all. And he has to put
> >>> up with us...or, well...you, too...:-)
> >>
> >> Not exactly. He doesn't put up with me. He censors me. And it is supposed
> >> to be OUR newsgroup, not his. Ask where all the other moderators have
> >> gone. At least he has some knowledge of the subject matter.
> >
> > If Professor McAdams is the founder and moderator of this Newsgroup how
>
> Excuse me. You know nothing about this newsgroup. You know nothing about
> how UseNet works. McAdams was not the founder of this newsgroup. He was
> just another poster like you. We had 3 other moderators. Then McAdams
> staged a coup d'etat and took over as the sole moderator. No one here is
> old enough to even remember the names of the other moderators. Read the
> rules.

Survival of the fittest.  So what?  Maybe the others got tired
of putting up with loud mouths like you.

> > does it become OUR newsgroup? You can approach Google to start a NG of
> > your own and they would assume you will be head moderator because it was
> > your idea. If approved they expect you to establish and enforce the ROC,
> Usenet not Google. Google only carries the newsgroups. They are UseNet
> newsgroups and supposed to follow the UseNet guidelines. If you pretend to
> know how to use Google, Google USENET and read the rules.

So Google does accept some responsibility for content?

> > obviously a reflection of your personal values and rules. So in effect it
> A UseNet newsgroup is not supposed to reflect anyone's personal values and
> rules.

If it is supposed to be neutral, that is a rule!

> It is supposed to be neutral and open to all to express their views.

So that is their rule, and what I see happening on this UseNet newsgroup.
 Professor McAdams is following the rule of allowing all to express
their views.  This whiney post by you is proof of that.

> But of course some trolls try to violate the rules and ruins
> newsgroups like this one.

You push the envelope everyday, so why are you complaining?
 Obviously you don't want an envelope at all right?  If you get
your wish then discussion becomes a verbal barroom brawl.

> > would be your Newsgroup even though technically Google is the owner.
> Google is not the owner.
> They only carry some newsgroups.

Their name is on the marquis.  Does UseNet content reflect on their
image?

> > The NG should reflect the personality of the founder. If you don't like
> That's very stupid. This is not supposed to be a cult.

This Newsgroup is obviously not a cult.  Members of a cult all think
alike.  You are verbal proof it is not a cult.  You must be
thinking of other discussion groups that are unabashedly CT.  It
would be more accurate to call them CCs, Conspiracy Cults.

> This is supposed to be an open discussion group.

This is the US Open of Newsgroups.  Anyone from the Planet Earth can
join in.

> > the simple ROC on this NG then start your own. What free market
> I seem to remember some kook who did that and left this newsgroup and set
> up his own, because he was being censored all the time. So how did that
> go? Does ANYONE post there at all? All he did was play dictator to push
> HIS kook theory. At least McAdams doesn't do that, but he makes it clear
> that he is a WC defender. We prefer NOT to call him a Lone Nutter any
> more. And he does use his real name HERE. I've spoken to him in person and
> KNOW who he is.
> I know who some of the trolls are and have spoken to some of them in
> person, but Trolls like to use alias so that their friends and family
> won't be embarrassed by the stupid things they say.
> > competition is all about. As a socialist I know you hate free market
> > competition, but your style might attract a following.
> Well, McAdams lets you get away with slander like that because you are
> one of his minions. I am not a Socialist. I believe in a much more
> dangerous political system. It's called Democracy.

If illegal aliens get to vote in the next election as Democrats hope, then
the USA will become a perennial one party democracy like Mexico. What a
thrill for all Democrats: Progressives, Liberals, Socialists. Then you
can outlaw Entrepreneurs, Profits, Conservatives, and the despised Middle
Class after you get through picking their pockets. After you take them to
the cleaners you can also disband the US Military, Border Patrol, and all
Polices Departments too. The IRS can replace the CIA. Ironically there
is one group of entrepreneurs hoping your party wins, the Drug Cartels.

> > Liberal is just a short word for Control Freak so you would have to guard
> I guess it's not slander now that JFK is dead and not here to defend
> himself. He was proud to call himself a Liberal and defined it. Look it
> up on Google if you can figure out how to use Google.
> I call myself a Liberal only to annoy the Nazis. My friends know me as
> a Progressive, but I can't explain what that means to a Nazi.

Hitler and Mussolini were considered Progressives in their day. They
pioneered a new concept called Socialism. To many Europeans that was
progress. Nazis and Fascists and Communists were all Socialists. Once in
power all 3 did away with elections.  So did Castro and the Ortega
brothers in Nicaragua.  Hugo Chavez tried to do the same thing.
 International pressure prevented him from imitating his hero Fidel
Castro but he managed to destroy the Venezuelan economy anyway.

> > against your natural instinct to go berserk on anyone that doesn't agree
> > with you. In fact it may help to have a quota on how many times you
> You haven't seen me go berserk.

Yes I have.

> We have rules here. I can't say what I really want to say. I have to
> moderate my language or my messages will just get deleted. Sometimes I
> have to reply to the same message several times, trying different wording
> to see what makes it past the censor. Sometimes I try big words or foreign
> words which I know that he won't know and tell slip through.

You are the biggest spoiled brat on this UseNet discussion group.  I
have no idea why Professor McAdams puts up with you.  I've been
censored for responding to you in-kind several times.  Evidently you
enjoy some kind of seniority status.

> > overuse the word Nazi. I think 50 times per person is reasonable, since
> > you have pretty much worn out that invective on this NG.
> You think I've only used the word Nazi here 50 times? Maybe you meant 50
> times in one message. Or you're just new here. As I explained hundreds
> of times before, I stopped using the word Fascist and changed it to Nazi
> because so many uneducated people did not know what a Fascist is. They
> thought it only refers to Franco.

Fascist is from the Italian word, Fascisti.  Hitler admired Italian
Socialism and started his own brand called the Nazis.  Both were top
down Socialist models, the reason why the wealthiest class liked the idea
of Socialism in those two countries.  They looked down on the Middle
Class and called them the "bourgeoisie" which basically means townspeople,
which shows how extreme Socialism really is.  Isn't that weird
"townspeople" became a political slur?  Same is true today where both
Democrats and Republicans look down their nose at the Middle Class in the
USA.  If they could figure out a way to get rid of us it would make
them both very happy.

The worst model of Socialism was the Bolshevik Revolution that destroyed
both the upperclass and middle-class.  The Russian economy collapsed
and the Russian people starved by the millions.

> > Good luck being an entrepreneur. I expect to be Nazified on your very
> Why would I want to be an entrepreneur? I'm not a crook.

As you always say, "Prove It".  How do we know you're not a CIA plant
on this newsgroup to stir up dissension?  How do we know you're not
part of the Shadow Government we hear rumors about?  You seem to know
a lot of insider information about them.

By the way Mom and Pop stores are Entrepreneurs too and so are Farmers and
Ranchers.  Basically anyone who does not depend on the Government and
is willing to take risks and stand on their own is an entrepreneur.
 Don't worry, I doubt you will ever be accused of being one.

entrepreneur - a person who organizes and operates a business or
businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do
so.

Actually, some might argue most politicians are Entrepreneurs too when
running for office, but they use OPM to get elected and then sellout to
join the most exclusive Private Club in America, the US Congress. As a
politician Trump is a notable exception since he used his own money to run
for office, the reason why members of The Private Club in DC fear and
loathe him.  I think some Republicans hope Hillary wins because they
know she is for sale to the highest bidder.  The problem is foreign
bidders are already on her team and way ahead of the curve.

> > Newsgroup for speaking truth to power, but that's OK. I'm used to it by
> I don't have my own Newsgroup. I had a blog, but the company shut down.
> And you wouldn't have even understood the Reverse Puppet Stayman Convention.
> Google THAT.

I will.

[BOZ]

It is supposed to be neutral? The conspiracy alarmists use words like
NAZI. Your political affiliation is Communist Party USA.

[Anthony Marsh]

Based on the fact that it was a conspiracy and his rifle was left behind
to be discovered.

[BOZ]

You are not a climatologist. You are a leftwing conspiracy alarmist.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly.
Climate change is our OUR planet since the industrial age.
Not the whole universe. Just to play the Troll you could have pointed to
Iceball Earth and claim the Koch brothers didn't cause that.

> don't doubt that man might be a contributing factor but hardly the most
> significant one. There are so many things that affect our climate and man
> is just a small part of that equation. The earth has been going through

Sure, but the one thing that is changing it the most is human activity.
Try to argue that human activity caused the Iceball Earth.

> warming and cooling periods for as long as it has been revolving around
> the sun. Sea levels have risen and fallen. The face of the globe is

So you know so little about science that you claim that sea levels have
been rising and falling ever since the Earth has been revolving around the
Sun. You are disqualified from any further discussions. Good bye.

> constantly changing. It's the natural order of things. Instead of getting
> our shorts in a wad about it we should be using our brains to adapt to the
> changing forces of nature.
>

It WAS the natural order of things until humans became industrialized.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You can hear more of my ignorance on that dictabelt tape.

The one that you says has the four shots.

Just listen carefully and you can hear me coordinate the shooting.

Not really but you hear whatever fantasy you want on that thing.

[Bud]

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2005/ConspiracyBeliefsMayBeHinderingHIVPreventionAmongAfricanAmericans.aspx

> >> John: we have scientists in a dozen-and one major fields - planetary
> >> science, earth science, atmospheric science, ocean science, climate
> >> science et cetera - and many minor ones and scientists from dozens of
> >> countries over several decades who largely agree that human activity is
> >> causing a warming of the planet.
> >
> > But since the vast majority of those people are not climate
> > scientists, that just means they are going along with what is
> > fashionable.
> >
>
> Well, if you have 99% of scientists saying that Global Warming is real
> and 99% of Republicans saying that Global Warming is a hoax created by
> all Gore, doesn't that tell you something?

That you like to make things up?

And did any of Gore`s predictions about Global Warming come to pass?

> > Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
> > what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
> > different in the past, and may well say something different in the
> > future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
> >
>
> Sometimes it is and has been.
>
> > Skepticism is not allowed.
> >
>
> Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
> Like the Amazing Randy forum.

Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
to the false narratives they prefer.

> >
> >> My favorite source on this is Anthony
> >> Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
> >> he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.
> >>
> >
> > I saw him at a Heartland Institute conference last summer.
> >
> >> You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
> >> severe - how much warming - will occur.
> >>
> >
> > One class of skeptics are "luke warmers:" people who believe in some
> > man-made warming, but don't believe the magnitude will be
> > catastrophic.
> >
>
> One group of LNers call themselves non-conspiracies instead of WC
> defenders. They are too smart to fall for the WC lies, but believe
> Oswald did it alone. I'd like to see how they explain how Oswald could
> wound Kennedy and Connally separately without any Single Bullet Theory.

I`d like to see you to explain how we got to the Moon without a spaceship.

> Kooks can't defend it.
>
> > Scientific American recently published an article taking this
> > position:
> >
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
> >
>
> Yeah, so what? Because it's only going to be our grandchildren who are
> going to be injured that that absolve the current generation of any
> responsibility.

Have you seen the national debt?

> If you poison someone and he doesn't die for 25 years is that OK?

If he dies in a car crash, yeah.

> >
> >> Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
> >> been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
> >> is flawed);
> >
> > True. Any finding that supports the dominant paradigm won't get
> > really close scrutiny.
> >
>
> Something like that.
>
> > And the problem is worse when the people doing the reviewing are
> > strongly attached to a political position, and the paper in question
> > supports that position.
> >
>
> You mean like the NAS?
>
> >
> >> certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
> >> accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
> >> capture" that's occurred.
> >>
> >> But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.
> >>
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > I would not say "fraud." I would say "moral panic."
> >
>
> It's one thing to BELIEVE something, but another thing to PROMOTE it.

And another thing still to show it. The climate alarmists would be
better off if some of their dire predictions came true. If an economist
kept making claims that the economy was going to tank and it didn`t, the
only people who would keep paying any attention to that economist would be
those who had a bias towards a belief in a tanking economy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which Hidell?

[Anthony Marsh]

Not all four of them. Only two were in the TSBD and they planted the
rifle and shells, after using them. The other two were on the grassy knoll.
Again, LBJ ordered the coverup to prevent WWIII. Everyone went along
with it.

>

[Bud]

Which says nothing about him being framed.

> and his rifle was left behind
> to be discovered.

Hinckley`s gun was discovered, was he framed? How about Booth, hid gun
was discovered, was he framed?

How is the finding of a murder weapon indicative of framing?

[Anthony Marsh]

Uses what? I do not post on Morley's blog.

> The same person who is often complaining about Nazis suppressing his
> speech.
>

I did not complain that Nazis are suppressing my speech.

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm not making up anything. Just reporting the facts.

> And did any of Gore`s predictions about Global Warming come to pass?
>

Yes.

>>> Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
>>> what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
>>> different in the past, and may well say something different in the
>>> future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes it is and has been.
>>
>>> Skepticism is not allowed.
>>>
>>
>> Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
>> Like the Amazing Randy forum.
>
> Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
> the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
> to the false narratives they prefer.
>

Just ask if you don't understand.

>
>>>
>>>> My favorite source on this is Anthony
>>>> Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
>>>> he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I saw him at a Heartland Institute conference last summer.
>>>
>>>> You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
>>>> severe - how much warming - will occur.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One class of skeptics are "luke warmers:" people who believe in some
>>> man-made warming, but don't believe the magnitude will be
>>> catastrophic.
>>>
>>
>> One group of LNers call themselves non-conspiracies instead of WC
>> defenders. They are too smart to fall for the WC lies, but believe
>> Oswald did it alone. I'd like to see how they explain how Oswald could
>> wound Kennedy and Connally separately without any Single Bullet Theory.
>
> I`d like to see you to explain how we got to the Moon without a spaceship.
>

What's the matter with a rocket?
Didn't you watch the launch?

>> Kooks can't defend it.
>>
>>> Scientific American recently published an article taking this
>>> position:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, so what? Because it's only going to be our grandchildren who are
>> going to be injured that that absolve the current generation of any
>> responsibility.
>
> Have you seen the national debt?
>

Yeah, and Bush contributed to it. Can you remember the name of the
President who left us with no debt, but instea with a surplus?
Give you a hint, it wasn't a Bush.

>> If you poison someone and he doesn't die for 25 years is that OK?
>
> If he dies in a car crash, yeah.
>

So you think it's OK to poison people. How about shoving them into ovens?

>>>
>>>> Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
>>>> been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
>>>> is flawed);
>>>
>>> True. Any finding that supports the dominant paradigm won't get
>>> really close scrutiny.
>>>
>>
>> Something like that.
>>
>>> And the problem is worse when the people doing the reviewing are
>>> strongly attached to a political position, and the paper in question
>>> supports that position.
>>>
>>
>> You mean like the NAS?
>>
>>>
>>>> certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
>>>> accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
>>>> capture" that's occurred.
>>>>
>>>> But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> I would not say "fraud." I would say "moral panic."
>>>
>>
>> It's one thing to BELIEVE something, but another thing to PROMOTE it.
>
> And another thing still to show it. The climate alarmists would be
> better off if some of their dire predictions came true. If an economist

I don't think you seem to understand that some of the changes will take
many years. You won't see a 10 degree rise in one day.
Ice Ball Earth didn't happen in one year.

> kept making claims that the economy was going to tank and it didn`t, the

Even when it tanked you wouldn't admit it, because your Republicans were
in charge. Even when the economy recovered you can't admit it because
you hate Obama because he's black.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. I said 5. You always misrepresent what I say.

> Just listen carefully and you can hear me coordinate the shooting.
>
> Not really but you hear whatever fantasy you want on that thing.
>
>

The shots were not detected by listening to them.
They were found mathematically.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never claimed to be a climatologist, but I think Ken Rahn is.

[bigdog]

If Al Gore was right, it's already too late for us. His shitty movie came
out in 2006 and he said if we didn't fix the problem within 10 years we
would be past the point of no return. I guess there's nothing for us to do
but bend over, put our heads between our knees, and kiss our sweet asses
good-bye.

> > > Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
> > > what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
> > > different in the past, and may well say something different in the
> > > future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
> > >
> >
> > Sometimes it is and has been.
> >
> > > Skepticism is not allowed.
> > >
> >
> > Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
> > Like the Amazing Randy forum.
>
> Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
> the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
> to the false narratives they prefer.
>

Liberals think they should be judged by their good intentions, not their
results.

It's been said that being an economist is the only profession in which you
can become a recognized expert without every being right about anything. I
guess we can add climate alarmist to that as well.

The case for catastrophic climate change is based entirely on models, not
actual data. There has been a slight warming of the earth since 1980 but
that followed an abnormally cool period from 1940-1980. Not sure how the
climate change alarmists explain that one. In fact many of the eggheads
back in the 1970s were speculating we were at the dawn of a new Ice Age
following two brutally cold winters 1976-78. In the 1990s they were making
projections about the rising temperature of the earth for the coming
decades. Almost all of them overshot the mark significantly. But just like
conspiracy hobbyists, failure to be right about anything doesn't
discourage them one bit.

[a.dea...@gmail.com]

Since the industrial age. Since 1760? So the earth's temperature has
been rising since 1760? WOW! WHAT AN IGNORANT CLIMATOLOGIST YOU ARE.

[claviger]

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 9/4/2016 2:27 PM, stevemg wrote:
>
> > Is your argument that Oswald was framed by the four man sniper team on the
> > Grassy Knoll?
> > You've repeatedly said that it was just that: a sniper team. And that the
> > others went along to prevent WWIII.
> > So again: this four man team sent by Helms planted the rifle and shells
> > and other evidence?
> Not all four of them. Only two were in the TSBD and they planted the
> rifle and shells, after using them. The other two were on the grassy knoll.

That would be the sniper with the split personality, Gerry Droller/Frank
Bender, the man with two heads! Did he bring two rifles, one for each
head or maybe a double barreled shotgun with two sabots?

> Again, LBJ ordered the coverup to prevent WWIII. Everyone went along
> with it.

So your agree with director Wilfried Huismann the Cubans did it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Death

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Uses the ban by Morley to attack John.

No, you never complain about the "Nazis" here trying to silence you and
the truth.

That's another Marsh.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
On 9/1/2016 5:30 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 8/30/2016 8:38 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/30/2016 10:59 AM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 11:52:56 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
- show quoted text -

>>>> Well, this is just typical Hypocrisy from the censor in chief, who
>>>> refuses to post message here because they suggest conspiracy.
>>>
>>> <snicker> After 50 years of effort the conspiracy hobbyists have
>>> finally
>>> reached a point where they can suggest there was a conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>>

>> We already proved it, but you were in a coma.
>>
>>
>
> Sure, Tony. Sure. Oh, are you basing your fantasy on the "acoustical
> evidence"?
>

No. I have always believed in the same pattern of shots. It's just that
the acoustical evidence gave me the exact timing of the shots and verified
the locations of the shooters.

> The "acoustical evidence" that was shown to be neither at Dealey Plaza
> nor at the time of the assassination?
>

Wrong. i rebutted that phony report.


Nonsense. You never rebutted anything. You don't have the expertise to do
any such thing. You should probably stick to Bridge.

[Bud]

Try using some instead of invented imaginary data.

> > And did any of Gore`s predictions about Global Warming come to pass?
> >
>
> Yes.

Which ones?


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/25/state-of-the-climate-10-years-after-al-gore-declared-a-planetary-emergency-top-10-reasons-gore-was-wrong/

One year after Gore`s "An Inconvenient Truth" came out a UK judge ruled
it couldn`t be shown to schoolchilden without a disclaimer stating all the
inaccuracies. Strange that "truth" would need such a disclaimer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

> >>> Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
> >>> what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
> >>> different in the past, and may well say something different in the
> >>> future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sometimes it is and has been.
> >>
> >>> Skepticism is not allowed.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
> >> Like the Amazing Randy forum.
> >
> > Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
> > the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
> > to the false narratives they prefer.
> >
>
> Just ask if you don't understand.

Why would I ask a liberal about his false narratives? In most cases they
don`t even know they are false. It`s enough for me to know they are
untrue.

> >
> >>>
> >>>> My favorite source on this is Anthony
> >>>> Watts' site. I'm sure you're familiar with it. He's a believer in warming;
> >>>> he just thinks it will be small and largely inconsequential.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I saw him at a Heartland Institute conference last summer.
> >>>
> >>>> You know all of this better than I do. The question among them is how
> >>>> severe - how much warming - will occur.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> One class of skeptics are "luke warmers:" people who believe in some
> >>> man-made warming, but don't believe the magnitude will be
> >>> catastrophic.
> >>>
> >>
> >> One group of LNers call themselves non-conspiracies instead of WC
> >> defenders. They are too smart to fall for the WC lies, but believe
> >> Oswald did it alone. I'd like to see how they explain how Oswald could
> >> wound Kennedy and Connally separately without any Single Bullet Theory.
> >
> > I`d like to see you to explain how we got to the Moon without a spaceship.
> >
>
> What's the matter with a rocket?

Much of the rocket didn`t go to the Moon.

> Didn't you watch the launch?

Didn`t you watch the Zapruder film?

> >> Kooks can't defend it.
> >>
> >>> Scientific American recently published an article taking this
> >>> position:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah, so what? Because it's only going to be our grandchildren who are
> >> going to be injured that that absolve the current generation of any
> >> responsibility.
> >
> > Have you seen the national debt?
> >
>
> Yeah, and Bush contributed to it.

So that is bad debt and Obama`s debt is good debt, and future
generations will not be injured by Obama`s debt?

> Can you remember the name of the
> President who left us with no debt, but instea with a surplus?
> Give you a hint, it wasn't a Bush.

<snicker> You think there was no national debt when Clinton left office?

> >> If you poison someone and he doesn't die for 25 years is that OK?
> >
> > If he dies in a car crash, yeah.
> >
>
> So you think it's OK to poison people. How about shoving them into ovens?

I had both my parents cremated if that is what you are asking.

> >>>
> >>>> Is this all group think? Possible. I certainly agree that there hasn't
> >>>> been enough checks on this claim (peer review process, as now practiced,
> >>>> is flawed);
> >>>
> >>> True. Any finding that supports the dominant paradigm won't get
> >>> really close scrutiny.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Something like that.
> >>
> >>> And the problem is worse when the people doing the reviewing are
> >>> strongly attached to a political position, and the paper in question
> >>> supports that position.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You mean like the NAS?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> certainly not from the news media which just uncritically
> >>>> accepts whatever reporter is issued. There's a sort of "regulatory
> >>>> capture" that's occurred.
> >>>>
> >>>> But again, this doesn't mean dishonesty on their part.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree.
> >>>
> >>> I would not say "fraud." I would say "moral panic."
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's one thing to BELIEVE something, but another thing to PROMOTE it.
> >
> > And another thing still to show it. The climate alarmists would be
> > better off if some of their dire predictions came true. If an economist
>
> I don't think you seem to understand that some of the changes will take
> many years.

I don`t think you understand that scientists have made short term
predictions that haven`t come to pass?

Heard anything about the ozone disappearing lately?

> You won't see a 10 degree rise in one day.
> Ice Ball Earth didn't happen in one year.
>
> > kept making claims that the economy was going to tank and it didn`t, the
>
> Even when it tanked you wouldn't admit it, because your Republicans were
> in charge. Even when the economy recovered you can't admit it because
> you hate Obama because he's black.

I don`t hate Obama, I have a lot of respect for him. And he isn`t black,
he is white. Just like Tiger Woods is Asian. And George Zimmerman is
Hispanic. Why would I let someone else decide for me whether the glass is
half empty or half full?

[Anthony Marsh]

Suggests.

>> and his rifle was left behind
>> to be discovered.
>
> Hinckley`s gun was discovered, was he framed? How about Booth, hid gun
> was discovered, was he framed?
>

Does someone pay you to be silly or does it come naturally? You could say
the same silly things about people we know were framed. You misuse words
to create phony arguments. Hinckley's gun was "discovered" on him. Booth's
derringer? I haven't heard any serious challenges about the gun that Booth
dropped at the crime scene.

> How is the finding of a murder weapon indicative of framing?

Circumstances. If 5 bank robbers are involved in a shooting and the only
gun found matches the bullets that killed someone there is more of a
chance that it was left there to frame the patsy.

[Bud]

You take the total number of CIA agents and divide by two.

[Bud]

I suppose we could hope that Al Gore wasn`t right (apparently he doesn`t
believe his own BS, saw somewhere where Gore bought a beachfront
property). Luckily the facts strongly indicate this.

I didn`t realize it, but that shitty movie won an academy award for best
documentary feature. How is a movie where a guy gets up and speculates an
informative film?

> > > > Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
> > > > what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
> > > > different in the past, and may well say something different in the
> > > > future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sometimes it is and has been.
> > >
> > > > Skepticism is not allowed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
> > > Like the Amazing Randy forum.
> >
> > Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
> > the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
> > to the false narratives they prefer.
> >
>
> Liberals think they should be judged by their good intentions, not their
> results.

They like "feel good" solutions to problems that are largely created by
their own guilt.

Yah, if temperature fluctuation has always occurred then there is word
for this, "normal".

But now we are in "something must be done" mode, where every action
taken is stupid and wasteful. We just made a climate agreement with China,
which means we have hamstrung our economy and China will still do whatever
it wants to.

Saw a video of Bill Nye (the science guy) talking with Obama and he
trotted out the same nonsense liberals have been pushing for at least the
last two decades, solar power and wind power. If they weren`t inefficient
and too costly you wouldn`t need to promote them, they would have taken
off by now, the public sector would have adopted them. A real study
showing cost versus reward would show that those who did implement them
were burned.

> In fact many of the eggheads
> back in the 1970s were speculating we were at the dawn of a new Ice Age
> following two brutally cold winters 1976-78. In the 1990s they were making
> projections about the rising temperature of the earth for the coming
> decades. Almost all of them overshot the mark significantly. But just like
> conspiracy hobbyists, failure to be right about anything doesn't
> discourage them one bit.

Scientists are really good at figuring stuff out, but terrible at
predicting. They predicted the Ozone was going to disappear. They
predicted killer bees were going to come from down south and kill
thousands a year. They predicted an AIDS epidemic. They always neglect to
take into account a key bit of information that throws their whole
predictions out the window. With the killer bees they bred with domestic
bees and got calmer. With AID they based the numbers using the rate high
risk groups were contracting the disease. The problem is that their is no
accountability, the scientists that inflate the numbers and the media that
trumpet the bad predictions are both rewarded for being wrong. Just like
conspiracy authors are rewarded for being wrong, it insures a continuation
of the problem.

[Bud]

In what way?

> >> and his rifle was left behind
> >> to be discovered.
> >
> > Hinckley`s gun was discovered, was he framed? How about Booth, hid gun
> > was discovered, was he framed?
> >
>
> Does someone pay you to be silly or does it come naturally?

It was your silly argument that finding the murder weapon points to
Oswald being framed. You neglected to show how this was indicative.

And while I have your limited attention, what is the best piece of
evidence you`ve seen that indicates Oswald was framed?

> You could say
> the same silly things about people we know were framed. You misuse words
> to create phony arguments. Hinckley's gun was "discovered" on him. Booth's
> derringer? I haven't heard any serious challenges about the gun that Booth
> dropped at the crime scene.
>
> > How is the finding of a murder weapon indicative of framing?
>
> Circumstances.

What circumstance in the JFK assassination indicate that finding the
murder weapon was indicative of framing? Oswald claiming to be a patsy?

> If 5 bank robbers are involved in a shooting and the only
> gun found matches the bullets that killed someone there is more of a
> chance that it was left there to frame the patsy.

<snicker> A lesser mind might think that the bullets matching the gun
that killed someone was indicative that the gun killed that person.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. Neither do I believe that the Cubans did Watergate all by
themselves. they were only helpers, hired assistants.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Death
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So what if it's already too late for us? You won't be around to see it
happen and you don't care what happens to your grandchildren. Once you've
made your money you don't care about anyone else.

> out in 2006 and he said if we didn't fix the problem within 10 years we
> would be past the point of no return. I guess there's nothing for us to do

Sure, too late to stop it or reverse it, but we can still slow it down
and lessen some of the effects.

> but bend over, put our heads between our knees, and kiss our sweet asses
> good-bye.
>

Have we gotten rid of all nuclear weapons? No, but we've reduced them.
But they are still a danger.

>>>> Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
>>>> what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
>>>> different in the past, and may well say something different in the
>>>> future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes it is and has been.
>>>
>>>> Skepticism is not allowed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
>>> Like the Amazing Randy forum.
>>
>> Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
>> the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
>> to the false narratives they prefer.
>>
>
> Liberals think they should be judged by their good intentions, not their
> results.
>

Sometimes you can't achieve 100% in 10 minutes.
It's taken 8 years to bring unemployment down from 10% to 4%. Who was
the last President to bring it down to 0%?

Nope.

> The case for catastrophic climate change is based entirely on models, not

So now you change the argument by calling it "catastrophic." Why not call
it Apocalyptic as in the movie 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow? They are
talking about changes over many years which we are starting to see now. If
the canary dies in the coal mine you step back and don't go into the coal
mine. Hillary would close the coal mine. Trump would send in immigrant
workers at $5/hour.

> actual data. There has been a slight warming of the earth since 1980 but
> that followed an abnormally cool period from 1940-1980. Not sure how the

You are a Denialist. I've noticed that JFK conspiracy Denialists tend to
also be Climate Change Denialists and Holocaust Denialists.

> climate change alarmists explain that one. In fact many of the eggheads
> back in the 1970s were speculating we were at the dawn of a new Ice Age
> following two brutally cold winters 1976-78. In the 1990s they were making

Again, you show your lack of education. Global Warming could cause a new
Ice Age. We are due for one in a few thouand years, but in the mean time
Climate Change could cause violent shift in the environment we live in. I
guess you think it's better that people die that way than wars. But
Climate Change might cause new territorial wars.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Was Sammy white, too? Oh, dear…...

[bigdog]

There is no bigger hypocrite in this world than Al Gore. While he was
telling the rest of us to conserve, his family was using 20 times the
electricity as the average household. Utility bills are public record in
Tennessee. He tried to justify that by telling people he was buying carbon
credits. What he didn't tell people was he bought those from his own
company. In effect, he was paying himself to allow himself to use way more
energy than he was telling us we should be allowed to use.

His ultimate act of hypocrisy was when he made a fortune selling his
fledgling Current TV cable channel to Al-Jazeera America. In essence he
was lining his pockets with oil money, but I'm sure that didn't bother him
one bit.

But our intentions were good.

> Saw a video of Bill Nye (the science guy) talking with Obama and he
> trotted out the same nonsense liberals have been pushing for at least the
> last two decades, solar power and wind power. If they weren`t inefficient
> and too costly you wouldn`t need to promote them, they would have taken
> off by now, the public sector would have adopted them. A real study
> showing cost versus reward would show that those who did implement them
> were burned.
>

BINGO!!! If they could make solar and wind practical and affordable people
would be beating down their doors. I would be one of them. I have no love
affair with the fossil fuel industry. I own no stock in them other than in
the indexed mutual fund I own. One of my cars can accept e85 fuel. When
gasoline prices soared last year, I began using it because at the time it
was quite a bit cheaper. I discovered I got only 80% of the mileage I got
with straight gasoline. For a while it was still cheaper to drive with e85
but since gasoline prices have come way down, it's not even close. I leave
the e85 in the pump. People vote with their dollars and if and when
alternative energy becomes as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, people
will buy it. Until then we need to continue to burn coal and oil to meet
our energy needs. I wonder how many of the tree huggers realize that the
plastic case on their iPhones, iPads, and other electronic devices is a
petroleum byproduct.

>
> > In fact many of the eggheads
> > back in the 1970s were speculating we were at the dawn of a new Ice Age
> > following two brutally cold winters 1976-78. In the 1990s they were making
> > projections about the rising temperature of the earth for the coming
> > decades. Almost all of them overshot the mark significantly. But just like
> > conspiracy hobbyists, failure to be right about anything doesn't
> > discourage them one bit.
>
> Scientists are really good at figuring stuff out, but terrible at
> predicting. They predicted the Ozone was going to disappear. They
> predicted killer bees were going to come from down south and kill
> thousands a year. They predicted an AIDS epidemic. They always neglect to
> take into account a key bit of information that throws their whole
> predictions out the window. With the killer bees they bred with domestic
> bees and got calmer. With AID they based the numbers using the rate high
> risk groups were contracting the disease. The problem is that their is no
> accountability, the scientists that inflate the numbers and the media that
> trumpet the bad predictions are both rewarded for being wrong. Just like
> conspiracy authors are rewarded for being wrong, it insures a continuation
> of the problem.

Yes, the scientific community is very good at explaining what is in our
rearview mirror. They have a difficult time figuring out what is on the
road ahead.

[TJ Scully]

I did not submit a resignation. An article was posted by Jeff Morley
complaining about a decline of visitors to his website. The same day I
received a phone call from Morley, the first and only telephone contact I
ever had with him. He informed me that he decided he needed to edit
comments himself. Shortly after this, it seems to me there was an emphasis
on, an assumption of the sincerity of Jim Garrison in his assassination
investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw and the malevolence of CIA
against the efforts of a sincere Garrison.

A timeline:

Toward JFK Facts 2.0
August 5, 2016 http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-facts-2-0-look-ahead/

The CIA’s secret files on Jim Garrison, the prosecutor celebrated in ‘JFK’
August 19, 2016 http://jfkfacts.org/the-cias-secret-files-on-jim-garrison-the-prosecutor-celebrated-in-jfk/

The Garrison Group: What one top CIA official said about Clay Shaw
August 20, 2016 http://jfkfacts.org/the-garrison-group-what-one-top-cia-official-said-about-clay-shaw/

Larry King on Jim Garrison: ‘He’s not a charlatan’
August 21, 2016 http://jfkfacts.org/larry-king-on-jim-garrison-hes-not-a-charlatan/

Oliver Stone says ex-government agent told him ‘JFK assassination was an inside job’
August 29, 2016 http://jfkfacts.org/oliver-stone-says-ex-government-agent-told-him-jfk-assassination-was-an-inside-job/

Although Jeff Morley did not ask me for my opinion about the decline in
visitors to jfkfacts.org, I did volunteer that I perceived a spike in
submitted comments when John McAdams was an active commenter, vs. a
decline when he was not, and that there had been several gaps in his
recent participation. I may have also mentioned that the recent lack of
comments submitted by photon after I reminded that entity that disclosure
of a working email address was still expected, probably also influenced a
decline of site visitor numbers.

Despite what I have described, I was still quite surprised to read on an
announcement of my resignation as comments editor and an invitation for
applicants interested in replacing me.

Not knowing the subsequent moves and announcements and still wanting
success for the website I had just volunteered my time at, seven days per
week for nearly ten months, I also shared with Morley the advice that he
keep it real and that it was my opinion that Ramon Herrara lacked
discernment. Jeff Morley indicated he did not understand why I was of that
opinion.

This was posted yesterday.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23031
"Just when we thought that the LNs were an extinguishing species ..."
Started by Ramon F. Herrera,

I've considered for a month whether to comment at all, related to my
experience as a volunteer at jfkfacts.org. I could have remained silent,
simply accepting Morley's damning of me publicly with faint praise.

Mr. Trump has lately thoroughly taxed my tolerance for mendacious BS.

In the interest of fairness, I was pleased and very surprised to see this
comment approved.

http://jfkfacts.org/doctors-prescription-think-jfk/#comment-893556
Lance Payette
September 6, 2016 at 5:38 pm

"...The psychology of True Believer Lone Nutters and True Believer
Conspiracy Theorists is indeed fascinating, and TBLN and TBCT probably
cannot be explained in the same terms – but both sets of TB have
gone way beyond what the evidence will actually support. The maddening
thing about the JFK assassination is that the evidence actually does point
in multiple directions, and sane and reasonable people can and do come to
very different conclusions. But both TB camps are simply dogmatic,
fundamentalist, quasi-religious zealots....."

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

"More of a chance".

This is the perfect example of the conspiracy mindset. It's impossible to
create a better example.

This is how he views the evidence against Oswald. NOT as more likely
evidence of his culpability; but more likely evidence of his innocence, of
being framed.

Amazing.

[Anthony Marsh]

Apples and oranges. Hinckley was seized while he was holding the gun he
used and it was wrestled from his hand. The DPD took a while to find the
Carcano in the TSBD and Oswald was somewhere else.

> And while I have your limited attention, what is the best piece of
> evidence you`ve seen that indicates Oswald was framed?
>

The rifle. The leaks linking him to Castro.

>> You could say
>> the same silly things about people we know were framed. You misuse words
>> to create phony arguments. Hinckley's gun was "discovered" on him. Booth's
>> derringer? I haven't heard any serious challenges about the gun that Booth
>> dropped at the crime scene.
>>
>>> How is the finding of a murder weapon indicative of framing?
>>
>> Circumstances.
>
> What circumstance in the JFK assassination indicate that finding the
> murder weapon was indicative of framing? Oswald claiming to be a patsy?
>

Shots from different directions, but the only gun found was in the TSBD.
Like 5 bank robbers and one is left behind to be the patsy.

>> If 5 bank robbers are involved in a shooting and the only
>> gun found matches the bullets that killed someone there is more of a
>> chance that it was left there to frame the patsy.
>
> <snicker> A lesser mind might think that the bullets matching the gun
> that killed someone was indicative that the gun killed that person.
>

You can't always match the bullets to a specific gun.
Where is the bullet that hit James Brady in the head? How many bullets
were recovered intact and could be ballistically matched to Hinckley's gun?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

As he said, the warming proponents - Gore, Hansen et al. - have stated
that it's too late. We can't mitigate it or lessen it. It's done.

Of course, they also said 15-20 years ago that by now we would be having
massive flooding caused by the melted ice caps (melted: they're gone),
massive starvation due to food shortages, droughts, famines, the whole
biblical end of time stuff.

Today. Now.

Unless I'm missing things none of that is occurring.

[Bud]

Dunno about Sammy, but that football player who won`t sit during the
National Anthem is also white.

[John McAdams]

On 7 Sep 2016 19:55:16 -0400, TJ Scully <not...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I did not submit a resignation. An article was posted by Jeff Morley
>complaining about a decline of visitors to his website. The same day I
>received a phone call from Morley, the first and only telephone contact I
>ever had with him. He informed me that he decided he needed to edit
>comments himself.

Very interesting, since he clearly implied (actually, claimed IIRC)
that you had resigned.

>Shortly after this, it seems to me there was an emphasis
>on, an assumption of the sincerity of Jim Garrison in his assassination
>investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw and the malevolence of CIA
>against the efforts of a sincere Garrison.
>

Your theory on this is really quirky. Having said that, I see no
reason why you should not be free to express it. And if Morley was
unhappy with that, perhaps he should have simply posted comments
disagreeing with you.

While I had some major issues with you -- particularly you calling me
a racist merely because I come from Alabama -- it was true that when
you were moderator debate was quite wide open.

It's really poison when moderation is used to enforce a particular
substantive position on the assassination.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

You made no such distinctions in your argument.

> Hinckley was seized while he was holding the gun he
> used and it was wrestled from his hand. The DPD took a while to find the
> Carcano in the TSBD and Oswald was somewhere else.

> > And while I have your limited attention, what is the best piece of
> > evidence you`ve seen that indicates Oswald was framed?
> >
>
> The rifle.

Oswald`s rifle used as the murder weapon is the best piece of evidence
that Oswald was framed?

> The leaks linking him to Castro.

That he was a political fanatic is evidence he was framed for killing a
political figure?

> >> You could say
> >> the same silly things about people we know were framed. You misuse words
> >> to create phony arguments. Hinckley's gun was "discovered" on him. Booth's
> >> derringer? I haven't heard any serious challenges about the gun that Booth
> >> dropped at the crime scene.
> >>
> >>> How is the finding of a murder weapon indicative of framing?
> >>
> >> Circumstances.
> >
> > What circumstance in the JFK assassination indicate that finding the
> > murder weapon was indicative of framing? Oswald claiming to be a patsy?
> >
>
> Shots from different directions, but the only gun found was in the TSBD.

How does that indicate Oswald was framed?

> Like 5 bank robbers and one is left behind to be the patsy.

So if 5 people rob a bank and one gets caught that indicates to you that
the one was framed.

It is a good thing criminal investigation is only a hobby of yours.

> >> If 5 bank robbers are involved in a shooting and the only
> >> gun found matches the bullets that killed someone there is more of a
> >> chance that it was left there to frame the patsy.
> >
> > <snicker> A lesser mind might think that the bullets matching the gun
> > that killed someone was indicative that the gun killed that person.
> >
>
> You can't always match the bullets to a specific gun.

You stipulated that they did match in your example.

> Where is the bullet that hit James Brady in the head? How many bullets
> were recovered intact and could be ballistically matched to Hinckley's gun?

Are you saying Hinckley was framed also?

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe he bought is cheap when it was a desert.

> I didn`t realize it, but that shitty movie won an academy award for best
> documentary feature. How is a movie where a guy gets up and speculates an
> informative film?
>
>>>>> Frankly, "science" often looks to me like a cult. You have to believe
>>>>> what "science" says right now (never mind that it said something
>>>>> different in the past, and may well say something different in the
>>>>> future) or you are an ignorant yahoo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it is and has been.
>>>>
>>>>> Skepticism is not allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skepticism is sometimes just rightwing kookery.
>>>> Like the Amazing Randy forum.
>>>
>>> Liberals just like to say things and have them accepted regardless of
>>> the idea`s merits. They don`t like critical examination, it is detrimental
>>> to the false narratives they prefer.
>>>
>>
>> Liberals think they should be judged by their good intentions, not their
>> results.
>
> They like "feel good" solutions to problems that are largely created by
> their own guilt.
>

Sounds like rightwing logic to me.

No. cyclic with extremes.

> But now we are in "something must be done" mode, where every action

No, not yet. The first phase is admitting it. Then thinking about. Much
late doing something about it.

You don't DO SOMETHING about a fire before it has started. You try to
prevent it before it happens.

> taken is stupid and wasteful. We just made a climate agreement with China,
> which means we have hamstrung our economy and China will still do whatever
> it wants to.
>

BS. Even China is smart enough to see the problem.
They are not ruled by rightwing Republicans with ties to Big Oil.

> Saw a video of Bill Nye (the science guy) talking with Obama and he
> trotted out the same nonsense liberals have been pushing for at least the

Could be because he is a real scientist and you are not.

> last two decades, solar power and wind power. If they weren`t inefficient
> and too costly you wouldn`t need to promote them, they would have taken

Maybe. You would rather spend those trillions on mindless wars.

> off by now, the public sector would have adopted them. A real study

They already have.

> showing cost versus reward would show that those who did implement them
> were burned.
>

On purpose.

>
>> In fact many of the eggheads
>> back in the 1970s were speculating we were at the dawn of a new Ice Age
>> following two brutally cold winters 1976-78. In the 1990s they were making
>> projections about the rising temperature of the earth for the coming
>> decades. Almost all of them overshot the mark significantly. But just like
>> conspiracy hobbyists, failure to be right about anything doesn't
>> discourage them one bit.
>
> Scientists are really good at figuring stuff out, but terrible at
> predicting. They predicted the Ozone was going to disappear. They

WHEN? YOU mean it the year 5,000 and it hasn't happened yet?

> predicted killer bees were going to come from down south and kill
> thousands a year. They predicted an AIDS epidemic. They always neglect to

Not exactly. They were partially true, but prophetic enough for us to
take counter measures.

> take into account a key bit of information that throws their whole
> predictions out the window. With the killer bees they bred with domestic
> bees and got calmer. With AID they based the numbers using the rate high

And then the domestic bees go wiped out by chemicals and disease.

> risk groups were contracting the disease. The problem is that their is no
> accountability, the scientists that inflate the numbers and the media that
> trumpet the bad predictions are both rewarded for being wrong. Just like
> conspiracy authors are rewarded for being wrong, it insures a continuation
> of the problem.
>

They showed the worst case scenario to scare us into acting.
So, you think the Black Plague was just a bad cold?

>

[John McAdams]

On 8 Sep 2016 17:02:46 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Translation: they lied to manipulate us.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Should have been "won`t stand", not "won`t sit".

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:13:12 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

> Liberals believe in situational ethics. "The End Justifies The Means" is
> at the core of their belief system. They have no affection for Logic or
> Consistency or Equitability if any of those concepts prove awkward.
> Sandy and a couple of other Liberals on this Newsgroup are notable
> exceptions, by no means typical of Liberal mentality. Conservative ethics
> makes slaves to Logic and Commonsense.
>
> As for Jefferson Morley I have admiration for his courage and
> determination to sue the US Government (CIA) for release all remaining
> documents. Very brave thing to do along with his teammates. Kudos to all
> of them. My guess is one day they will be shocked and disappointed when
> they finally read those documents. The most Liberal President in US
> history now sits in the Oval Office and with a stroke of his magic pen can
> authorize the release of those documents as a going away gift to all CTs
> on the planet Earth. The only thing standing in the way of that historic
> event is approval by the Kennedy family.
>
> I have a feeling that last hurdle won't be removed anytime soon and
> predict an extension of the Top Secret classification for at least another
> decade. This from an extremely Progressive Administration. Sorry, no
> progress for CTs and maybe not in their lifetime.
>
> As for the JFKfacts website it is interesting reading but not exactly a
> level playing field. Given that home field advantage not sure why Morley
> is so intimidated by Professor McAdams. I wonder why such an outspoken
> critic of the WCR has never ventured into the US Open of all JFK websites,
> the international Newsgroup free-for-all we engage in everyday of the
> year. Why does anything Professor McAdams have to say threaten all the CT
> intellectuals on Morley's selective blog? What are they afraid of?

"Liberals believe in situational ethics." Love comments like that imaging
an alternate universe where every person is a philosopher. Most people,
and even most people in the subset of intelligent people who do think
about thinks like politics and morality, do not operate in that kind of
rarified world. So, that comment is obviously wrong from the start.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wow, they were off a little bit about a couple of those things. but
generally right as we see in recent events.
BTW, the Biblical end of time also involves a final military battle in
the Middle East. Haven't seen that yet, have we?

[claviger]

You have an interesting Irish surname:

Scully

Name Meaning. Irish: reduced Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó Scolaidhe
'descendant of the scholar', from scolaidhe 'scholar'.

www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=scully

The Irish name, "Scully" comes from older forms Ó Scalaidhe, Ó
Scolaidhe, Ó Scolaí and Ó Scolaighe. These surnames
referred to an ancestor who functioned as a sceulaidhe, a high-ranking
storyteller of an old Irish court, or a "student". Other early modern
forms of the surname include Scally and Skully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scully

This is an Anglicized form of the Old Gaelic name "O' Scolaidhe" or "O'
Scolaire". The Gaelic prefix "O" indicated "male descendant of", plus
"Scolaide", a Crier, i.e. one whose duty it was to announce important
forthcoming events, or "Scolaire", a student.

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Scully
Read more: http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Scully#ixzz4Jgk1jXuC
________________________________________________________________________

It appears you are doing exactly what your ancestral name indicates you
should be doing. You seem to have the intellectual capacity to hear both
sides of an argument. Were you born with this gift or did your family
raise you that way? True intellectuals have a thirst for knowledge
therefore want to hear both sides of a dispute, and welcome any
information about the topic, including various opinions. They are
stimulated by debate and not threatened by diversity. This healthy
intellectual curiosity enhances brain power and mental acuity. It is said
that "Steel sharpens Steel" and so it is with open debate.


Morley

This interesting surname, of English origin, is a locational name from any
of the various places called Morley in Cheshire, Derbyshire, Durham,
Norfolk and West Yorkshire, or Moreleigh in Devon, deriving from the Olde
English pre 7th Century "mor" meaning marsh, moor or fen plus "leah", wood
or clearing, hence "leah by a fen or moor". The surname dates back to the
early 14th Century.

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Morley
Read more: http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Morley#ixzz4JgqF7eu2
_________________________________________________________________________


Sounds like you did an excellent job for the Englishman you worked for.
Too bad he didn't appreciate your intellectual commitment to his
ostensible debate forum. Evidently a level playing field was not what he
had in mind. Too bad, I like the approach and presentation of his
website. I also admired him for being a fearless Truth Seeker. Guess I
was wrong.

Welcome to the Number One debate forum on this historic case. Glad you're
here and look forward to reading your thoughts and observations.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Bud, he's pushing the "CIA spread stories linking Castro to Oswald and the
killing". He thinks it's evidence that the CIA was involved.

First, he can't cite any evidence - I asked - showing this occurred. Not
from the CIA: "from" as in directed, ordered, orchestrated.

Even if they did that's not evidence that they were behind the
assassination. It's just evidence that they were trying to use it for
their advantage. Or maybe they thought Castro WAS involved.

I've read a lot of stories about the CIA and all of this Cuban stuff. From
what I've read they were not big supporters of it. That is the top people.
They had other concerns and Castro and his little squalid revolution was
not high on the list. The Pentagon? Yes, they were worried. But the CIA?
Not so much.

Maybe I have it all wrong.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Well, they did find Hinckley's gun on him. Don't you find that suspicious?