Jackie's "brains" statement
Robert Harris
at Z312-313, or was she reaching back to retrieve a piece of her husband's
brain?
One important clue is the fact, that after she returned to her seat, she
stated that she was holding her husband's brains in her hand. This is what
Nellie Connally told the WC,
"..and then there was the second shot, and then after the third shot she
said, 'They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my hand,' and she
repeated that several times, and that was all the conversation."
Of course, LNers adamantly disagree. Mark Hiatt has claimed that Mrs.
Kennedy really didn't say that until long after the limo left Dealey
Plaza, giving her plenty of time to have retrieved the brain tissue (which
she passed to Dr. Jenkins at Parkland) from the floor or elsewhere.
But I think there is definitive evidence, that Jackie actually said this,
immediately after returning to her seat. This is from Governor Connally's
testimony,
Mr. SPECTER. Did she say anything more?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes; she said, I heard her say one time, "I have got
his brains in my hand."
(unquote)
That was the last thing Governor Connally seems to have heard, before
losing consciousness. But when did he actually pass out? If that happened
well after the limo left DP, then perhaps Mark was right. Maybe she did
make that statement much later. Fortunately, we don't have to guess about
this. This is more of JBC's testimony:
"..I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, 'Bill, get out of line.' And
then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button or something on
the panel of the automobile, and he said, 'Get us to a hospital quick.' I
assumed he was saying this to the patrolman, the motorcycle police who
were leading us.
At about that time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of the
line, and I lost consciousness and didn't regain consciousness until we
got to the hospital."
Kellerman grabbed the mike, and the limo did indeed, pull "out of line",
passing the lead car, as they approached the Stemmons onramp. Based on his
testimony, this is when the Governor passed out. He heard nothing else,
before they arrived at Parkland.
But after reaching back across the trunk, Jackie didn't get back in her
seat until about Z420. The limo went under the overpass during the Z460's.
The rapidly accelerating limousine must have been on the freeway then,
within a few seconds after that.
Based on that timing, Jackie could only have had a few seconds to utter
the "brains in my hand" statements, in order for the Governor to have
heard her, before he lost consciousness.
The point of all this is very clear. Mrs. Kennedy *IMMEDIATELY* stated "I
have his brains in my hand", after returning to her seat and her husband.
These theories that she tried to escape from the limousine are
preposterous, and are nothing more than a painfully transparent attempt to
salvage the last remnants of credibility for the notion that one shooter
committed this crime.
You can get a good, closup look at her in this stabilized, animated GIF,
taken from the MPI, DVD Zfilm:
ftp://www.c-works.com/jackie.gif
There was a gunshot after the Z312 head wound that blew brain matter
directly to the rear, including the piece that Jackie retrieved, and the
piece of skull that Charles Brehm saw fly backward from the President's
head. That was almost certainly, the piece that Dr. Boswell recalled
arriving late on the evening of the 22nd.
Bob
--
Check out my website, The JFK Assassination Home Page
http://www.c-works.com/jfk/
the FTP site is:
ftp://www.c-works.com/
Jjdorfner
she reached back and grabbed a piece of her husbands brain. unreal. was
holding it in her hand. was saying "oh my god...they've killed my
husband...i'm holding his brains in my hands..." not too surreal.
Robert Harris
mark...@aol.com (MarkHiatt) wrote:
(Be very careful if you crosspost to the "moderated" JFK group. If they
censor a message they are now pulling it from *ALL* newsgroups by refusing
to honor the "Newsgroups" headers. This is a recently banned message that
I had crossposted to all three groups.)
> >Was Jackie Kennedy trying to escape from the limousine
> >after the head shot at Z312-313, or was she reaching back
> >to retrieve a piece of her husband's brain?
>
> She was momentarily trying to escape.
>
> >Of course, LNers adamantly disagree. Mark Hiatt has
> >claimed that Mrs. Kennedy really didn't say that until
> >long after the limo left Dealey Plaza, giving her plenty
> >of time to have retrieved the brain tissue (which she
> >passed to Dr. Jenkins at Parkland) from the floor or
> >elsewhere.
>
> I'll give $100 to Bob's favorite charity when he posts a quote of me saying
> this. He can't, so I won't. It is only Bob's *interpretation* of what I
said at
> work, here. Bob says I said it was "long after" but that's not what I said at
> all.
Of course that's your position Mark. You're going to pitch it again in
just a few more paragraphs.
>
> I don't think it happened there in Dealey Plaza, but sometime after.
Correction, in the very next line:-)
> After
> Jackie returned to her seat and before they left the hospital for
SAM26000 with
> the casket. I don't dispute that Jackie said these words, or words very close
> to these. My dispute is that they necessarily had to happen at any particular
> point in the trip.
Mark, you're ignoring the entire context of my post. John Connally heard
her say those words too, and he passed out before the limo even made it
onto the Stemmons Freeway.
I think you know it too, because shortly, you're going to snip the
citation and all of my analysis on the point.
>
> Here, Bob will dig deep into the Buff Bag O' Tricks
> and call up eyewitness
> testimony, which of course the rest of us all know is some of the most
> unreliable testimony in any case.
Mark, you seem to have a real problem with stereotyping. Not only have you
decided what all my "tricks" are, and the buff's, but you seem to have
decided that all of these witnesses are "unreliable".
Why is it that everyone who disagrees with your theory has so many problems?
> If we find a page where Nellie gets anything
> provably wrong, it won't matter, because here in this instance she was telling
> the truth.
What citation are you talking about Mark?
I have no idea what your point here is. Are you claiming that Nellie and
JBC were both mistaken in declaring that Jackie said she was holding her
husband's brains in her hand??
What do you suppose *really* happened? You seem to have a much better feel
for these events than the people who were actually there. Why don't you
help us out here?
> We know this only because Bob has decreed it to be so,
Mark, everything you say is just dripping with sarcasm and anger. On a
scale of 1=10 exactly how open-minded and objective do you think you are
about the case?
I happen to think it's unlikely that both the Connallys would make exactly
the same error. I also think that by turning the brain tissue over to Dr.
Jenkins at Parkland, Jackie at least provided circumstantial corroboration
for the Connally's recollection.
Why do you doubt them?
> but we have
> to accept this because Bob has given careful study to this and cannot be
wrong,
> right?
Mark, you seem to be far more interested in attacking me and the people
whom you label as "buffs" than in dealing with the evidence.
Rather than constantly attack those who disagree with you, why not just
discuss the evidence and testimonies? If you have grounds to impeache the
Connally's statements, please show it to us. Otherwise, why not just lay
our evidence on the table and let everyone make their own call?
>
> One of the hallmarks of BuffScience(tm) that bothers me so much is this
> reliance on eyewitness testimony, even to the exclusion of the facts in the
> physical and photographic evidence.
I'm sorry, but somehow, I missed all these "facts". I have never seen even
a shred of evidence from your or anyone else, that is contradictory to
what I have been saying. Not only that Mark, but you have never even
*claimed* to have such evidence.
If you do, then why are you keeping it from us? Let's see what you have
that's contradictory to anything I've stated.
>
> See, the way this one works is that people are either truthful and correct or
> they are lying. Nobody is ever wrong. If something said can be proven wrong,
> the person who said it told a lie, they did not make a mistake.
This is just sarcastic gibberish, Mark.
Your long winded attack against "buffs" is entirely wasted on me, since I
disagree with most of them, more than I do you.
Here are the facts, Mark. Feel free to reject or accept anything you like,
but I think you will see that many of these points corroborate each other.
1. Nellie recalled Jackie repeatedly saying that she had her husband's
brains in her hands.
2. JBC recalled Jackie saying that she had her husband's brains in her hands.
3. JBC said he lost consciousness as the limo was "pulling out of line",
which happened before the limo turned onto the Stemmons freeway. This left
an extremely short gap between Jackie sitting back down, and JBC passing
out.
4. Dr. Jenkins said Jackie turned brain matter over to him when she
arrived at Parkland.
We already know that Jackie reached out across the trunk with her right
hand and tried to grab something. Not only can we easily see that, but
Clint Hill, who was closest to her then, said exactly the same thing.
We also know that Jackie said she could see brain matter seperating from
her husband's head, just before she turned around and reached back. She
retrieved the stuff, sat back down, and then promptly declared that she
was holding her husband's brains in her hand.
That is what happened, Mark. You just can't talk around it.
>
> So if Nellie compressed the drive to Parkland into sixteen or eighteen words
> instead of going on about how many lane-changes there were as they dodged
> traffic, she's not skipping over material. She's not hiding anything.
She's not
> wrong--she's lying.
What in holy hell are you talking about? If the goal is to be hopelessly
confusing, your are doing quite well.
And you are completely ignoring what I said. It was JBC who confirmed the
timing of Jackie's "brains" statement, not necessarily, Nellie.
> If Kellerman says he heard JFK say "I'm hit!" and nobody
> else did, then Kellerman is lying, he is not "wrong".
Kellerman was IMO, probably correct.
>
> Nellie had a lot on her mind that afternoon.
Wonderful argument. Lame as it is, at least I can understand that one:-)
> Everyone on the record has
> something that they didn't get exactly the way it happened--people remember
> things inexactly which is why so many first reports from news events are
> wrong... er, "lies".
Mark, no 12 people in these newsgroups has ever demonstrated such a talent
for inventing cliches and sweeping generalizations as you.
> We can match SS testimony up with the Z-film and see that
> the agents weren't actually looking the directions they said they were.
Really?
Could you please be specific? I'm not saying that you can't find an
example of that, but I am curious to see if you really can think of one.
> We can
> match witnesses in Dealey Plaza with their own testimony and see that they
> couldn't have seen what they said or that they didn't do what they claim.
Somewhere Mark, I'm sure there is a point to all this. When do we get to it?
> Are
> all of these people lying, though? Or are they maybe just a little bit wrong.
Do you have any idea how much time you could save by simply declaring that
we are human and subject to error? I would then so stipulate, and we could
move on to other issues.
This in just incredibly boring, Mark.
>
> Lady Bird Johnson remembers being led upstairs to await word on JFK.
Snore.....
> She
> wasn't, though. Is she wrong or did she lie?
Am I supposed to G.A.S. Mark?
> How you answer that question will
> color your perception of nearly every other contestible fact in the
> assassination, I think.
"Thinking" is indeed, a good thing Mark. Please do more of it.
>
> >Mr. SPECTER. Did she say anything more?
> >
> >Governor CONNALLY. Yes; she said, I heard her say
> >one time, "I have got his brains in my hand."
>
> Notice that JBC doesn't say "Yes; she said, I heard her say before we got to
> the underpass, "I have got his brains in my hand." He doesn't say "Yes; she
> said, I heard her say as we were just turning to the north and getting
onto the
> freeway, "I have got his brains in my hand." And he doesn't say "Yes;
she said,
> I heard her say as they were taking away JFK and trying to comfort her and
> bring her inside the hospital, "I have got his brains in my hand."
Can you think of anything else she didn't say, Mark?
>
> There's nothing in his testimony to indicate when she said this.
Of course there is. You just snipped it. Let's put it back in so that once
again, there will be something "in his testimony to indicate when she said
this.":
ftp://www.c-works.com/jackie.gif
Bob
>
> Consider, too, how small differences in the words used may have large
> differences in the meaning. Compare "I have got his brains in my hand" with "I
> have got his brains on my hand" or "I have got his brain on my hand" or
"I have
> gotten his brains on my hand" or "I've gotten his brains on my hand."
>
> All of these, or none of these, may have been what she actually said, in her
> breathy little-girl voice. Remember that Jackie came from a part of the
country
> where the people do not sound like the folks in Texas, when they talk.
>
> These theories that she tried to escape from the limousine are credible, and
> have nothing to do whatsoever with any notion of one or multiple shooters.
> That's only mentioned to try to cloud the issue and polarize readers into
> thinking that if they believe in a conspiracy Jackie had to have been acting
> one way, but if they believe in a single assassin, they have to believe Jackie
> was acting in some other way.
>
> You can get a good, stabilized, closeup view of Jackie in the Zapruder Film as
> released on IoaA from MPI, or view a few of the relevant frames in Groden's
> TKoaP, on pages 38 and 39. You needn't look at any altered .gif file for
> this--as in any case, go straight to the sources if you can.
>
> >There was a gunshot after the Z312 head wound that
> >blew brain matter directly to the rear
>
> Very clearly, the shot that hits JFK at z312 is the last shot fired in Dallas
> until later that afternoon, when Oswald shot Tippit.
>
>
> The New&Improved MarkHiatt
John McAdams
: In article <19980927005733...@ng126.aol.com>,
: mark...@aol.com (MarkHiatt) wrote:
: (Be very careful if you crosspost to the "moderated" JFK group. If they
: censor a message they are now pulling it from *ALL* newsgroups by refusing
: to honor the "Newsgroups" headers. This is a recently banned message that
: I had crossposted to all three groups.)
Bob, we don't *pull* it from anywhere. You seem to want us to repost it
to the Nuthouse *before* we reach a moderation verdict. This is a waste
of our time, and would break the thread into two pieces if we did it.
Reposting to the Nuthouse of messages that don't pass muster on the
moderated newsgroup is a courtesy we do for people. In your case, it's
not necessary, since you have a decent mail client which allows you simply
remove the moderated group from the header and repost yourself -- using
your outbox.
We'll happily repost to the Nuthouse only if a poster is honestly trying
to discuss the assassination (and not jerking us around), and actually
needs us to do this (posters using DejaNews, for example).
Now a sample of the rhetoric that caused us moderators to reject this
post.
: Mark, everything you say is just dripping with sarcasm and anger. On a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: scale of 1=10 exactly how open-minded and objective do you think you are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: about the case?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Mark, you seem to be far more interested in attacking me and the people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: whom you label as "buffs" than in dealing with the evidence.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: This is just sarcastic gibberish, Mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: What in holy hell are you talking about? If the goal is to be hopelessly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: confusing, your are doing quite well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Mark, no 12 people in these newsgroups has ever demonstrated such a talent
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: for inventing cliches and sweeping generalizations as you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >
: > Lady Bird Johnson remembers being led upstairs to await word on JFK.
: Snore.....
^^^^^^^^^^
: > She
: > wasn't, though. Is she wrong or did she lie?
: Am I supposed to G.A.S. Mark?
: > How you answer that question will
: > color your perception of nearly every other contestible fact in the
: > assassination, I think.
: "Thinking" is indeed, a good thing Mark. Please do more of it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If Bob wanted to argue with Hiatt on the moderated newsgroup, all he had
to do was hold down the rhetoric a bit.
.John
Joe Riehl
> Robert Harris <reha...@thuntek.net> wrote:
> : In article <19980927005733...@ng126.aol.com>,
> : mark...@aol.com (MarkHiatt) wrote:
>
>
> : (Be very careful if you crosspost to the "moderated" JFK group. If they
> : censor a message they are now pulling it from *ALL* newsgroups by refusing
> : to honor the "Newsgroups" headers. This is a recently banned message that
> : I had crossposted to all three groups.)
>
>
> to the Nuthouse *before* we reach a moderation verdict. This is a waste
> of our time, and would break the thread into two pieces if we did it.
>
> Reposting to the Nuthouse of messages that don't pass muster on the
> moderated newsgroup is a courtesy we do for people. In your case, it's
> not necessary, since you have a decent mail client which allows you simply
> remove the moderated group from the header and repost yourself -- using
> your outbox.
>
> We'll happily repost to the Nuthouse only if a poster is honestly trying
> to discuss the assassination (and not jerking us around), and actually
> needs us to do this (posters using DejaNews, for example).
>
> Now a sample of the rhetoric that caused us moderators to reject this
> post.
>
>
>
> : Mark, everything you say is just dripping with sarcasm and anger. On a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : scale of 1=10 exactly how open-minded and objective do you think you are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : about the case?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : whom you label as "buffs" than in dealing with the evidence.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> : This is just sarcastic gibberish, Mark.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> : What in holy hell are you talking about? If the goal is to be hopelessly
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : confusing, your are doing quite well.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> : Mark, no 12 people in these newsgroups has ever demonstrated such a talent
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : for inventing cliches and sweeping generalizations as you.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> : >
> : > Lady Bird Johnson remembers being led upstairs to await word on JFK.
>
>
> : Snore.....
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> : > She
> : > wasn't, though. Is she wrong or did she lie?
>
>
> : Am I supposed to G.A.S. Mark?
>
>
> : > How you answer that question will
> : > color your perception of nearly every other contestible fact in the
> : > assassination, I think.
>
>
> : "Thinking" is indeed, a good thing Mark. Please do more of it.
>
>
> If Bob wanted to argue with Hiatt on the moderated newsgroup, all he had
> to do was hold down the rhetoric a bit.
>
> .John
>
Very nicely redacted, John. I gather it's OK to be snide and sarcastic, but not to say
"Snore." What's the standard here?
How are things in the Playpen? Does anyone "scream and curse" at John D. Rockefeller?
JR
Robert Harris
<jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Robert Harris <reha...@thuntek.net> wrote:
> : In article <19980927005733...@ng126.aol.com>,
> : mark...@aol.com (MarkHiatt) wrote:
>
>
> : (Be very careful if you crosspost to the "moderated" JFK group. If they
> : censor a message they are now pulling it from *ALL* newsgroups by refusing
> : to honor the "Newsgroups" headers. This is a recently banned message that
> : I had crossposted to all three groups.)
>
>
> Bob, we don't *pull* it from anywhere. You seem to want us to repost it
> to the Nuthouse *before* we reach a moderation verdict. This is a waste
> of our time, and would break the thread into two pieces if we did it.
>
> Reposting to the Nuthouse of messages that don't pass muster on the
> moderated newsgroup is a courtesy we do for people. In your case, it's
> not necessary, since you have a decent mail client which allows you simply
> remove the moderated group from the header and repost yourself -- using
> your outbox.
>
> We'll happily repost to the Nuthouse only if a poster is honestly trying
> to discuss the assassination (and not jerking us around), and actually
> needs us to do this (posters using DejaNews, for example).
>
> Now a sample of the rhetoric that caused us moderators to reject this
> post.
>
>
>
> : Mark, everything you say is just dripping with sarcasm and anger. On a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : scale of 1=10 exactly how open-minded and objective do you think you are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : about the case?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> : Mark, you seem to be far more interested in attacking me and the people
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : whom you label as "buffs" than in dealing with the evidence.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unbelievable, isn't it!
They have gleefully reposted accusations that I am dishonest, a swindler,
a "moron", have a sinister "agenda", and a dozen other crude insults, many
from the moderators themselves. But if I dare to actually point out that
this has happened, my post is censored, but never the attacker's.
The "moderators" are also, auto-rejecting every response I make to
Bochan's bile, as well.
Also notice, that to date, they have still refused to honor the headers in
my message and crosspost it to the unmoderated groups. Apparently, it
isn't enough to just censor messages in their own group.
A.A.J. was created for one purpose, to ridicule and attack everyone and
anyone who offers evidence that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. These
days, they rarely bother to even hide their double standards.
Robert Harris
>
>
> : This is just sarcastic gibberish, Mark.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> : What in holy hell are you talking about? If the goal is to be hopelessly
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : confusing, your are doing quite well.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> : Mark, no 12 people in these newsgroups has ever demonstrated such a talent
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : for inventing cliches and sweeping generalizations as you.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> : >
> : > Lady Bird Johnson remembers being led upstairs to await word on JFK.
>
>
> : Snore.....
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> : > She
> : > wasn't, though. Is she wrong or did she lie?
>
>
> : Am I supposed to G.A.S. Mark?
>
>
> : > How you answer that question will
> : > color your perception of nearly every other contestible fact in the
> : > assassination, I think.
>
>
> : "Thinking" is indeed, a good thing Mark. Please do more of it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> If Bob wanted to argue with Hiatt on the moderated newsgroup, all he had
> to do was hold down the rhetoric a bit.
>
> .John
--
Joe Riehl
> > We'll happily repost to the Nuthouse only if a poster is honestly trying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > to discuss the assassination (and not jerking us around),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
(Snippe a la Jean M.)
> >
>
>
How's this for a standard? If you're "jerking us around" we won't forward your posts, no
matter what. And we get to decide. We treat your posts according to how what we divine your
motives to be.
That's why we call it "The Playpen." Savor the arrogance.
JR
John McAdams
>In article <6uofvu$sbj$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, jmca...@primenet.com says...
>> Robert Harris <reha...@thuntek.net> wrote:
>> : In article <19980927005733...@ng126.aol.com>,
>> : mark...@aol.com (MarkHiatt) wrote:
>>
>>
>> : (Be very careful if you crosspost to the "moderated" JFK group. If they
>> : censor a message they are now pulling it from *ALL* newsgroups by refusing
>> : to honor the "Newsgroups" headers. This is a recently banned message that
>> : I had crossposted to all three groups.)
>>
>>
>> Bob, we don't *pull* it from anywhere. You seem to want us to repost it
>> to the Nuthouse *before* we reach a moderation verdict. This is a waste
>> of our time, and would break the thread into two pieces if we did it.
>>
>> Reposting to the Nuthouse of messages that don't pass muster on the
>> moderated newsgroup is a courtesy we do for people. In your case, it's
>> not necessary, since you have a decent mail client which allows you simply
>> remove the moderated group from the header and repost yourself -- using
>> your outbox.
>>
>> We'll happily repost to the Nuthouse only if a poster is honestly trying
>> to discuss the assassination (and not jerking us around), and actually
>> needs us to do this (posters using DejaNews, for example).
>>
>> Now a sample of the rhetoric that caused us moderators to reject this
>> post.
>>
>>
>>
>> : Mark, everything you say is just dripping with sarcasm and anger. On a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> : scale of 1=10 exactly how open-minded and objective do you think you are
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> : about the case?
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> : Mark, you seem to be far more interested in attacking me and the people
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> : whom you label as "buffs" than in dealing with the evidence.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> : This is just sarcastic gibberish, Mark.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> : What in holy hell are you talking about? If the goal is to be hopelessly
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> : confusing, your are doing quite well.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>> : Mark, no 12 people in these newsgroups has ever demonstrated such a talent
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> : for inventing cliches and sweeping generalizations as you.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> : >
>> : > Lady Bird Johnson remembers being led upstairs to await word on JFK.
>>
>>
>> : Snore.....
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> : > She
>> : > wasn't, though. Is she wrong or did she lie?
>>
>>
>> : Am I supposed to G.A.S. Mark?
>>
>>
>> : > How you answer that question will
>> : > color your perception of nearly every other contestible fact in the
>> : > assassination, I think.
>>
>>
>> : "Thinking" is indeed, a good thing Mark. Please do more of it.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> If Bob wanted to argue with Hiatt on the moderated newsgroup, all he had
>> to do was hold down the rhetoric a bit.
>>
>> .John
>>
>
>Very nicely redacted, John.
Would you have preferred to wade through Harris turgid argument to see
the insults?
>I gather it's OK to be snide and sarcastic, but not to say
>"Snore." What's the standard here?
>
Look at the entire body of Harris' nasty comments.
>How are things in the Playpen? Does anyone "scream and
>curse" at John D. Rockefeller?
>
He hasn't shown up, but if he does, you won't be able to scream and
curse at him :-).
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Joe Riehl
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:22:54 -0500, re...@usl.edu (Joe Riehl) wrote:
>
> >In article <6uofvu$sbj$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, jmca...@primenet.com says...
> >> Robert Harris <reha...@thuntek.net> wrote:
> >> : mark...@aol.com (MarkHiatt) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> : (Be very careful if you crosspost to the "moderated" JFK group. If they
> >> : censor a message they are now pulling it from *ALL* newsgroups by refusing
> >> : to honor the "Newsgroups" headers. This is a recently banned message that
> >> : I had crossposted to all three groups.)
> >>
> >>
> >> to the Nuthouse *before* we reach a moderation verdict. This is a waste
> >> of our time, and would break the thread into two pieces if we did it.
> >>
> >> Reposting to the Nuthouse of messages that don't pass muster on the
> >> moderated newsgroup is a courtesy we do for people. In your case, it's
> >> not necessary, since you have a decent mail client which allows you simply
> >> remove the moderated group from the header and repost yourself -- using
> >> your outbox.
> >>
> >> We'll happily repost to the Nuthouse only if a poster is honestly trying
> >> to discuss the assassination (and not jerking us around), and actually
> >> needs us to do this (posters using DejaNews, for example).
> >>
> >> Now a sample of the rhetoric that caused us moderators to reject this
> >> post.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> : Mark, everything you say is just dripping with sarcasm and anger. On a
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> : scale of 1=10 exactly how open-minded and objective do you think you are
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> : about the case?
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> : whom you label as "buffs" than in dealing with the evidence.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>
> >> : This is just sarcastic gibberish, Mark.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> : What in holy hell are you talking about? If the goal is to be hopelessly
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> : confusing, your are doing quite well.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> : Mark, no 12 people in these newsgroups has ever demonstrated such a talent
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> : for inventing cliches and sweeping generalizations as you.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> : >
> >> : > Lady Bird Johnson remembers being led upstairs to await word on JFK.
> >>
> >>
> >> : Snore.....
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>
> >> : > She
> >> : > wasn't, though. Is she wrong or did she lie?
> >>
> >>
> >> : Am I supposed to G.A.S. Mark?
> >>
> >>
> >> : > How you answer that question will
> >> : > color your perception of nearly every other contestible fact in the
> >> : > assassination, I think.
> >>
> >>
> >> : "Thinking" is indeed, a good thing Mark. Please do more of it.
> >>
> >>
> >> If Bob wanted to argue with Hiatt on the moderated newsgroup, all he had
> >> to do was hold down the rhetoric a bit.
> >>
> >> .John
> >>
> >
> >Very nicely redacted, John.
>
>
> Would you have preferred to wade through Harris turgid argument to see
> the insults?
Why not, I you left in all the turgid insults of the other poster.
>
>
>
> >I gather it's OK to be snide and sarcastic, but not to say
> >"Snore." What's the standard here?
> >
>
>
> Look at the entire body of Harris' nasty comments.
>
>
That's one you underscored. What did you mean by that if you didn't mean that it offended
your standards?
> >How are things in the Playpen? Does anyone "scream and
> >curse" at John D. Rockefeller?
> >
>
>
> He hasn't shown up, but if he does, you won't be able to scream and
> curse at him :-).
I am such a threat to your brand of civility?
>
> .John
>
Savor the arrogance. It's the Playpen.
>