Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Debate Invitation From Fetzer
33 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Mar 20, 2012, 8:51:46 AM3/20/12
to
I got this in my e-mail this morning.
<Quote on>
From: "James Fetzer" <jfe...@d.umn.edu>
Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
To: jmca...@datasync.com
Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctor...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
<ralph_...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbar...@merr.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John,
Ralph sent this on the basis of my having extended an invitation to debate
to Gary Mack, which he promply declined, and then during an exchange on
amazon.com to S.V. Anderson, whom a number of students have supposed was
you publishing under a pseudonym. Regardless, I do think it would be a
great idea in recognition of the 50th observance of the death of JFK to
have a public debate between you and me, where we are (or were) both
faculty, me in philosophy and you in political science, where we both have
a certain degree of prominence, have published one or more books about the
assassination, and represent diametrically opposing points of view. I
have though about this since I moved to Madison in 2006, so I hope you
like this proposal, too.
I am sure that S.V. Anderson, whomever he may be, will neither identify
himself nor make more than a pseudo-acceptance, which he has already done,
but where, in the absence of identifying himself and allowing *bona fide*
access to his location and such, this is simply one more cowardly act from
someone with a widespread reputation for spreading misinformation,
disinformation and lies across the internet. I think you and I would make
a far more interesting combination, where I propose a two-hour public
debate divided into 15-minute segments, where I go first, you reply, and
so on, which leads to your having the last word. If one of us does not
use his whole time, the remainder will devolve to this opponent. We will
tape the debate and post it on the internet.
Kevin Barrett, whom you may or may not know, chairs the "Sifting and
Winnowing Club" on the UW-Madison campus, where, by copying him on this
email, I am inquiring whether he and the club would like to sponsor this
event. Since 2012 is not the 50th year since the assassination, but is in
close proximity, I would propose that we set it up in close proximity to
the 22nd, which however happens to be Thanksgiving this year. So perhaps
Wednesday, the 21st, would be a suitable occasion. Let me know if this
works for you. If you prefer Marquette, we could do that, too. But I
believe it is highly appropriate for persons like us to debate issues of
this magnitude.
Warm regards,
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
<doctor...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> he is so inclined.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: doctor...@hotmail.com
> To: jmca...@datasync.com
> Subject: debate invitation
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> Professor McAdams,
>
> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> Gary Mack", then visit
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
> he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/>
>
> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> James Fetzer
<Quote off>
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<Quote on>
From: "James Fetzer" <jfe...@d.umn.edu>
Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
To: jmca...@datasync.com
Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctor...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
<ralph_...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbar...@merr.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John,
Ralph sent this on the basis of my having extended an invitation to debate
to Gary Mack, which he promply declined, and then during an exchange on
amazon.com to S.V. Anderson, whom a number of students have supposed was
you publishing under a pseudonym. Regardless, I do think it would be a
great idea in recognition of the 50th observance of the death of JFK to
have a public debate between you and me, where we are (or were) both
faculty, me in philosophy and you in political science, where we both have
a certain degree of prominence, have published one or more books about the
assassination, and represent diametrically opposing points of view. I
have though about this since I moved to Madison in 2006, so I hope you
like this proposal, too.
I am sure that S.V. Anderson, whomever he may be, will neither identify
himself nor make more than a pseudo-acceptance, which he has already done,
but where, in the absence of identifying himself and allowing *bona fide*
access to his location and such, this is simply one more cowardly act from
someone with a widespread reputation for spreading misinformation,
disinformation and lies across the internet. I think you and I would make
a far more interesting combination, where I propose a two-hour public
debate divided into 15-minute segments, where I go first, you reply, and
so on, which leads to your having the last word. If one of us does not
use his whole time, the remainder will devolve to this opponent. We will
tape the debate and post it on the internet.
Kevin Barrett, whom you may or may not know, chairs the "Sifting and
Winnowing Club" on the UW-Madison campus, where, by copying him on this
email, I am inquiring whether he and the club would like to sponsor this
event. Since 2012 is not the 50th year since the assassination, but is in
close proximity, I would propose that we set it up in close proximity to
the 22nd, which however happens to be Thanksgiving this year. So perhaps
Wednesday, the 21st, would be a suitable occasion. Let me know if this
works for you. If you prefer Marquette, we could do that, too. But I
believe it is highly appropriate for persons like us to debate issues of
this magnitude.
Warm regards,
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
<doctor...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> he is so inclined.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: doctor...@hotmail.com
> To: jmca...@datasync.com
> Subject: debate invitation
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> Professor McAdams,
>
> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> Gary Mack", then visit
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
> he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/>
>
> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> James Fetzer
<Quote off>
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela Brown
Mar 20, 2012, 3:56:01 PM3/20/12
to
On Mar 20, 7:51 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> <Quote on>
>
> I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> <Quote on>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
> <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> > he is so inclined.
>
> > ------------------------------
> > From: doctorcin...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> > he is so inclined.
>
> > ------------------------------
> > To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> > Subject: debate invitation
> > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> > Professor McAdams,
>
> > My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> > entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> > here:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> > I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> > by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> > To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> > Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> > Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> > a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> > Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> > while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> > 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> > This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> > Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> > am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> > truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> > could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> > If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> > Gary Mack", then visit
> >http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
> > he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-...>
> > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> > Professor McAdams,
>
> > My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> > entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> > here:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> > I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> > by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> > To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> > Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> > Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> > a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> > Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> > while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> > 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> > This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> > Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> > am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> > truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> > could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> > If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> > Gary Mack", then visit
> >http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
>
> > It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> > and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > James Fetzer
>
> <Quote off>
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This would be truly hilarious.
> > It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> > and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > James Fetzer
>
> <Quote off>
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Mar 20, 2012, 10:40:09 PM3/20/12
to
I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
Fetzer:
<Quote on>
Hi, Jim,
I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
against Wrone.
In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
.John
<Quote off>
On 20 Mar 2012 08:51:46 -0400, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Fetzer:
<Quote on>
Hi, Jim,
I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
against Wrone.
In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
.John
<Quote off>
On 20 Mar 2012 08:51:46 -0400, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela Brown
Mar 21, 2012, 9:54:21 AM3/21/12
to
On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> Fetzer:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> against Wrone.
>
> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> .John
>
> <Quote off>
>
> On 20 Mar 2012 08:51:46 -0400, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> Fetzer:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> against Wrone.
>
> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> .John
>
> <Quote off>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> ><Quote on>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> ><Quote on>
>
> >From: "James Fetzer" <jfet...@d.umn.edu>
> >Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
> >Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
> >Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
> >Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
> >To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> >Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
> ><ralph_cin...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbarr...@merr.com>
>
> >Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
> ><ralph_cin...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbarr...@merr.com>
>
>
> >> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> >> he is so inclined.
>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> From: doctorcin...@hotmail.com
> >> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> >> he is so inclined.
>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> >> Subject: debate invitation
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> >> Professor McAdams,
>
> >> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> >> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> >> here:
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> >> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> >> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> >> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> >> Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> >> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> >> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> >> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> >> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> >> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> >> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> >> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> >> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> >> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> >> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> >> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> >> Gary Mack", then visit
> >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
> >> he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-...>
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> >> Professor McAdams,
>
> >> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> >> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> >> here:
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> >> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> >> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> >> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> >> Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> >> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> >> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> >> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> >> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> >> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> >> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> >> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> >> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> >> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> >> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> >> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> >> Gary Mack", then visit
> >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
>
> >> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> >> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> >> Sincerely,
>
> >> James Fetzer
>
> ><Quote off>
>
> >.John
>
Translation: McAdams acknowledges he can't handle Fetzer.
> >> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> >> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> >> Sincerely,
>
> >> James Fetzer
>
> ><Quote off>
>
> >.John
>
John McAdams
Mar 21, 2012, 9:56:43 AM3/21/12
to
On 21 Mar 2012 09:54:21 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
>> Fetzer:
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Hi, Jim,
>>
>> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>>
>> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
>> against Wrone.
>>
>> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>>
>> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
>> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>>
>> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>>
>> .John
>>
>> <Quote off>
>>
>>
>
and respected conspiracist.
Do you, Pamela, actually agree with Fetzer's nonsense?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
>> Fetzer:
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Hi, Jim,
>>
>> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>>
>> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
>> against Wrone.
>>
>> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>>
>> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
>> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>>
>> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>>
>> .John
>>
>> <Quote off>
>>
>>
>
>Translation: McAdams acknowledges he can't handle Fetzer.
Oh. So I "can't handle" Fetzer, but I can handle a fairly reputable
and respected conspiracist.
Do you, Pamela, actually agree with Fetzer's nonsense?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Mar 21, 2012, 12:34:27 PM3/21/12
to
Do you remember when Fetzer threatened to sue me and physically attack me
just for correcting an error in his book which the original author
admitted was HIS error in not understanding the intended text?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela Brown
Mar 21, 2012, 10:06:27 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 11:34 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Mar 2012 09:54:21 -0400, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> On 3/21/2012 9:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >>> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> >>> Fetzer:
>
> >>> <Quote on>
>
> >>> Hi, Jim,
>
> >>> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> >>> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> >>> against Wrone.
>
> >>> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> >>> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> >>> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> >>> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> >>> .John
>
> >>> <Quote off>
>
> >> Translation: McAdams acknowledges he can't handle Fetzer.
>
> > Oh. So I "can't handle" Fetzer, but I can handle a fairly reputable
> > and respected conspiracist.
>
> > Do you, Pamela, actually agree with Fetzer's nonsense?
>
> Have you read my articles on my Web site attacking Assassination Science?
> Do you remember when Fetzer threatened to sue me and physically attack me
> just for correcting an error in his book which the original author
> admitted was HIS error in not understanding the intended text?
I was unaware of this threat. I am not suprised.
>
> >> On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >>> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> >>> Fetzer:
>
> >>> <Quote on>
>
> >>> Hi, Jim,
>
> >>> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> >>> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> >>> against Wrone.
>
> >>> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> >>> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> >>> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> >>> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> >>> .John
>
> >>> <Quote off>
>
> >> Translation: McAdams acknowledges he can't handle Fetzer.
>
> > Oh. So I "can't handle" Fetzer, but I can handle a fairly reputable
> > and respected conspiracist.
>
> > Do you, Pamela, actually agree with Fetzer's nonsense?
>
> Have you read my articles on my Web site attacking Assassination Science?
> Do you remember when Fetzer threatened to sue me and physically attack me
> just for correcting an error in his book which the original author
> admitted was HIS error in not understanding the intended text?
Pamela Brown
Mar 21, 2012, 10:06:54 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 8:56 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2012 09:54:21 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
>
> Do you, Pamela, actually agree with Fetzer's nonsense?
>
About as much as I actually agree with any of yours. :-0
> On 21 Mar 2012 09:54:21 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> >> Fetzer:
>
> >> <Quote on>
>
> >> Hi, Jim,
>
> >> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> >> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> >> against Wrone.
>
> >> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> >> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> >> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> >> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> >> .John
>
> >> <Quote off>
>
> >Translation: McAdams acknowledges he can't handle Fetzer.
>
> Oh. So I "can't handle" Fetzer, but I can handle a fairly reputable
> and respected conspiracist.
Just who do you plan to debate if not Fetzer?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 9:40 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> >> Fetzer:
>
> >> <Quote on>
>
> >> Hi, Jim,
>
> >> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> >> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> >> against Wrone.
>
> >> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> >> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> >> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> >> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> >> .John
>
> >> <Quote off>
>
> >Translation: McAdams acknowledges he can't handle Fetzer.
>
> Oh. So I "can't handle" Fetzer, but I can handle a fairly reputable
> and respected conspiracist.
>
> Do you, Pamela, actually agree with Fetzer's nonsense?
>
Greg Jaynes
Mar 21, 2012, 10:24:31 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 20, 7:51 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> <Quote on>
>
>
> <Quote on>
>
> From: "James Fetzer" <jfet...@d.umn.edu>
> Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
> Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
> Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
> Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
> To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
> <ralph_cin...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbarr...@merr.com>
>
> Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
> <ralph_cin...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbarr...@merr.com>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
> <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
>
>
>
>
>
> > Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> > he is so inclined.
>
> > ------------------------------
> > From: doctorcin...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> > Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> > he is so inclined.
>
> > ------------------------------
> > To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> > Subject: debate invitation
> > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> > Professor McAdams,
>
> > My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> > entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> > here:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> > I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> > by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> > To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> > Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> > Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> > a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> > Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> > while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> > 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> > This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> > Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> > am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> > truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> > could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> > If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> > Gary Mack", then visit
> >http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
> > he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-...>
> > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> > Professor McAdams,
>
> > My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> > entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> > here:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> > I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> > by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> > To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> > Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> > Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> > a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> > Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> > while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> > 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> > This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> > Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> > am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> > truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> > could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> > If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> > Gary Mack", then visit
> >http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
>
> > It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> > and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > James Fetzer
>
> <Quote off>
>
> .John
I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer. But Gary Mack
> > It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> > and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > James Fetzer
>
> <Quote off>
>
> .John
wouldn't have a prayer. Too simple minded for an outright debate where you
have to think on your feet.
Fetzer would absolutely overwhelm anyone not smart enough to follow all
his branching premises and assumptions referencing other assumptions. The
man is a master story teller. I'm not talking about factual details. I'm
talking about the structure of his arguments.
Think about it. How many people can start and manipulate mass hysteria the
way Fetzer did with that Z-film alteration non sense. What ever gift Jim
Jones had, Fetzer has it too. He had 'em all drinking the Kool Aide. They
were even coming up with their own fantasy sightings of other Z-film
versions.
I have already read a lite newsgroup debate between John and Fetzer back
when they first came out with the Z-film bullshit. I recall John coming
off much the better.
Now, if you wanna see somebody absolutely OWN Fetzer,
go get Josiah Thompson
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
John McAdams
Mar 21, 2012, 10:25:44 PM3/21/12
to
On 21 Mar 2012 22:06:54 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Wrone.
Did you not read the post?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
Did you not read the post?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela Brown
Mar 22, 2012, 1:05:45 PM3/22/12
to
*true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
> But Gary Mack
> wouldn't have a prayer. Too simple minded for an outright debate where you
> have to think on your feet.
>
> Fetzer would absolutely overwhelm anyone not smart enough to follow all
> his branching premises and assumptions referencing other assumptions. The
> man is a master story teller. I'm not talking about factual details. I'm
> talking about the structure of his arguments.
for Fetzer who is always outside of his.
>
> Think about it. How many people can start and manipulate mass hysteria the
> way Fetzer did with that Z-film alteration non sense.
That lasted for four hours or so, and, even though nothing was
conclusively proven, was informative and very entertaining.
What ever gift Jim
> Jones had, Fetzer has it too. He had 'em all drinking the Kool Aide. They
> were even coming up with their own fantasy sightings of other Z-film
> versions.
NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day that there are
very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even though I don't buy
into Fetzer's specific claims.
>
> I have already read a lite newsgroup debate between John and Fetzer back
> when they first came out with the Z-film bullshit. I recall John coming
> off much the better.
>
> Now, if you wanna see somebody absolutely OWN Fetzer,
> go get Josiah Thompson
Forum and I think they each hold their own pretty well. I do agree,
though, that Fetzer's bullying tactics can be very distracting; Tink does
not usually sink to quite that level, so his arguments are more clearly
defined.
I was a victim of Fetzer's bullying. He got me kick off of the DellaRosa
forum. I complained to the U, as he was using their email. I didn't want
that to happen to anyone else.
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
Pamela Brown
Mar 22, 2012, 3:14:00 PM3/22/12
to
On Mar 21, 9:25 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2012 22:06:54 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
That was a rhetorical question.
Translation: Looks like McAdams want to pick someone he is
*comfortable* with.
Fetzer might have challenged him outside of his comfort zone.
> On 21 Mar 2012 22:06:54 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
Translation: Looks like McAdams want to pick someone he is
*comfortable* with.
Fetzer might have challenged him outside of his comfort zone.
bar...@comcast.net
Mar 22, 2012, 6:41:40 PM3/22/12
to
On 22 Mar 2012 13:05:45 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
the panel began .... gentlemen both both on and off the dais. They
were both on the panel .... on opposing sides of the issue.
Surely you are aware that Fetzer was not even on the panel .... and
had specific orders that he was not to go up there or prattle on from
the sidelines (due to previous incidents, from what I was told at the
time .... and I heard him being reminded of that both before and
during the panel).
It was toward the end that Fetzer stormed the stage, commandeered a
microphone .... and several thought it looked like he was going to
take a punch at Arthur Snyder. What ultimately ended it was the mike
was cut, the lights turned on and it was announced the session was
over and people were asked to leave the hall. People were stunned,
startled and disgusted at the behavior they had witnessed.
Personally, I didn't find that entertaining at all. It was a
disgusting display .... and anyone who saw it, or heard of it, or has
experienced Fetzer in even newsgroup/forum discussion groups, and who
still belittles someone else about not choosing to debate Fetzer ....
I frankly have to wonder what they are thinking.
Someone who does not know the facts of the evidence cold, and who
cannot field questions about it or provide citations to counter their
opponent, wouldn't stand a chance against anyone in a well structured
and controlled debate.
Perhaps you should debate Fetzer, Pamela .... oh wait, you agree with
him on the Z film and supported him in the Judyth thread he started on
the EF too. Never mind.
wrote:
way Fetzer did with that Z-film alteration non sense.
>
>Were you at NID 98 for the bloodbath between Fetzer and Lifton and Tink?
>That lasted for four hours or so, and, even though nothing was
>conclusively proven, was informative and very entertaining.
>
I was there. Front row. I had been sitting with Tink and Mantik before
>
>Were you at NID 98 for the bloodbath between Fetzer and Lifton and Tink?
>That lasted for four hours or so, and, even though nothing was
>conclusively proven, was informative and very entertaining.
>
the panel began .... gentlemen both both on and off the dais. They
were both on the panel .... on opposing sides of the issue.
Surely you are aware that Fetzer was not even on the panel .... and
had specific orders that he was not to go up there or prattle on from
the sidelines (due to previous incidents, from what I was told at the
time .... and I heard him being reminded of that both before and
during the panel).
It was toward the end that Fetzer stormed the stage, commandeered a
microphone .... and several thought it looked like he was going to
take a punch at Arthur Snyder. What ultimately ended it was the mike
was cut, the lights turned on and it was announced the session was
over and people were asked to leave the hall. People were stunned,
startled and disgusted at the behavior they had witnessed.
Personally, I didn't find that entertaining at all. It was a
disgusting display .... and anyone who saw it, or heard of it, or has
experienced Fetzer in even newsgroup/forum discussion groups, and who
still belittles someone else about not choosing to debate Fetzer ....
I frankly have to wonder what they are thinking.
Someone who does not know the facts of the evidence cold, and who
cannot field questions about it or provide citations to counter their
opponent, wouldn't stand a chance against anyone in a well structured
and controlled debate.
Perhaps you should debate Fetzer, Pamela .... oh wait, you agree with
him on the Z film and supported him in the Judyth thread he started on
the EF too. Never mind.
Greg Jaynes
Mar 22, 2012, 6:52:26 PM3/22/12
to
On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer.
> I'm not. McAdams is starting from a faulty axiom; namely, that the WC is
> *true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
> tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
Not really Pamela. That the WC got it right is the conclusion. Unlike the
> On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer.
> I'm not. McAdams is starting from a faulty axiom; namely, that the WC is
> *true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
> tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
conspiracists who start with the axiom that there was a conspiracy. I
think you are projecting.
> > But Gary Mack
> > wouldn't have a prayer. Too simple minded for an outright debate where you
> > have to think on your feet.
>
> Perhaps.
"A man's got to know his limitations." He would NEVER get into a debate
with someone like Fetzer. Hey, what would they be debating anyway?
> > Fetzer would absolutely overwhelm anyone not smart enough to follow all
> > his branching premises and assumptions referencing other assumptions. The
> > man is a master story teller. I'm not talking about factual details. I'm
> > talking about the structure of his arguments.
>
> Agreed. But McAdams, outside of his comfort zone of aaj, is no match
> for Fetzer who is always outside of his.
outmatch Fetzer. It would have to be moderated as I believe Fetzer has no
compunction about trying to change the rules to his liking if he isn't
doing well. And he wouldn't be.
> > Think about it. How many people can start and manipulate mass hysteria the
> > way Fetzer did with that Z-film alteration non sense.
>
> Were you at NID 98 for the bloodbath between Fetzer and Lifton and Tink?
> That lasted for four hours or so, and, even though nothing was
> conclusively proven, was informative and very entertaining.
>
> What ever gift Jim
knockout. But Fetzer wouldn't take it according to the rules and went up
on stage in an unplanned response. Debra Conway had to cut off his mic to
maintain control.
> > Jones had, Fetzer has it too. He had 'em all drinking the Kool Aide. They
> > were even coming up with their own fantasy sightings of other Z-film
> > versions.
>
> You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the Zapruder in
> NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day that there are
> very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even though I don't buy
> into Fetzer's specific claims.
But I believe DellaRosa and those others I can't remember their names were
lying through their teeth. One of them was Scott something who in a
revealing Fruedian like episode said he saw the word "SEX" imprinted all
over the grassy areas of the Z-film.
> > I have already read a lite newsgroup debate between John and Fetzer back
> > when they first came out with the Z-film bullshit. I recall John coming
> > off much the better.
>
> Your opinion. I doubt that I would agree.
McAdams take generally but I have nothing against Fetzer. As much as he
may be a bully, he is also very gracious. He's a good guy. He's just on
the other side as far as I'm concerned.
>
> > Now, if you wanna see somebody absolutely OWN Fetzer,
> > go get Josiah Thompson
>
> I question that. Fetzer and Tink regularly hash things out on the Ed
> Forum and I think they each hold their own pretty well. I do agree,
> though, that Fetzer's bullying tactics can be very distracting; Tink does
> not usually sink to quite that level, so his arguments are more clearly
> defined.
>
> I was a victim of Fetzer's bullying. He got me kick off of the DellaRosa
> forum. I complained to the U, as he was using their email. I didn't want
> that to happen to anyone else.
You talk about McAdams comfort zone being AAJ. But you don't often see
Fetzer posting here. Why? He can't control or manipulate it. I'm sure he
would be welcome to show up and start debating any time he wants.
Btw, I got booted from the DellaRosa disinfo board for posting the theory
that badgeman was the Coke bottle on the wall. These kind of people cannot
tolerate anything that contradicts their limited view of things.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Pamela Brown
Mar 29, 2012, 1:09:02 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 22, 5:41 pm, barb...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2012 13:05:45 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
Barb gives us her opinion -- she is entitled. But the translation
seems to be that you have to follow the rules that she is comfortable
with in order to have any information of value to provide.
One might also get the impression that the *only* valid opinion is
hers as well. In my world it makes much more sense to allow people to
decide for themselves what to think.
Barb also seem to like to put people into neat categories with which
she is comfortable. Having seen a copy of the Z-film(s) in NYC in
1964, I have my own thoughts about their provenance and alteration.
None of what I think comes from Fetzer.
I also spent seven years of my own time and effort getting to know
Judyth. I have my own thoughts about her and her statements as well;
none of them come from Fetzer.
But will Barb accept my position and move on, or try to twist things
around for months? ;-0
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
> On 22 Mar 2012 13:05:45 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
seems to be that you have to follow the rules that she is comfortable
with in order to have any information of value to provide.
One might also get the impression that the *only* valid opinion is
hers as well. In my world it makes much more sense to allow people to
decide for themselves what to think.
Barb also seem to like to put people into neat categories with which
she is comfortable. Having seen a copy of the Z-film(s) in NYC in
1964, I have my own thoughts about their provenance and alteration.
None of what I think comes from Fetzer.
I also spent seven years of my own time and effort getting to know
Judyth. I have my own thoughts about her and her statements as well;
none of them come from Fetzer.
But will Barb accept my position and move on, or try to twist things
around for months? ;-0
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
Pamela Brown
Mar 29, 2012, 1:09:59 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 22, 5:52 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer.
> > I'm not. McAdams is starting from a faulty axiom; namely, that the WC is
> > *true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
> > tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
>
> Not really Pamela. That the WC got it right is the conclusion.
I respectfully disagree. They began and ended with the axiom that LHO
> On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer.
> > I'm not. McAdams is starting from a faulty axiom; namely, that the WC is
> > *true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
> > tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
>
> Not really Pamela. That the WC got it right is the conclusion.
acted alone. That is circular reasoning. The axiom is the
conclusion. No logic involved.
> Unlike the
> conspiracists who start with the axiom that there was a conspiracy.
Not necessarily. It is possible for an historian to start with the
> conspiracists who start with the axiom that there was a conspiracy.
question "what actually happened?"
I
> think you are projecting.
I think I am being realistic. Even if LHO fired the shots, there is
> think you are projecting.
simply no way he acted alone. That is a fantasy.
>
> > > But Gary Mack
> > > wouldn't have a prayer. Too simple minded for an outright debate where you
> > > have to think on your feet.
>
> > Perhaps.
>
> I'd dearly love to see it. But Mack reminds me of Dirty Harry's comment;
> "A man's got to know his limitations." He would NEVER get into a debate
> with someone like Fetzer. Hey, what would they be debating anyway?
claimed to be both a CT and, now, conveniently, an LNT.
>
> > > Fetzer would absolutely overwhelm anyone not smart enough to follow all
> > > his branching premises and assumptions referencing other assumptions. The
> > > man is a master story teller. I'm not talking about factual details. I'm
> > > talking about the structure of his arguments.
>
> > Agreed. But McAdams, outside of his comfort zone of aaj, is no match
> > for Fetzer who is always outside of his.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. In a fairly run forum, John McAdams would easily
> outmatch Fetzer.
With all due respect, McAdams doesn't debate in open forums. He makes
> > > Fetzer would absolutely overwhelm anyone not smart enough to follow all
> > > his branching premises and assumptions referencing other assumptions. The
> > > man is a master story teller. I'm not talking about factual details. I'm
> > > talking about the structure of his arguments.
>
> > Agreed. But McAdams, outside of his comfort zone of aaj, is no match
> > for Fetzer who is always outside of his.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. In a fairly run forum, John McAdams would easily
> outmatch Fetzer.
the rules on aaj. I don't think anyone knows what would happen.
>It would have to be moderated as I believe Fetzer has no
> compunction about trying to change the rules to his liking if he isn't
> doing well. And he wouldn't be.
>
> > > Think about it. How many people can start and manipulate mass hysteria the
> > > way Fetzer did with that Z-film alteration non sense.
>
> > Were you at NID 98 for the bloodbath between Fetzer and Lifton and Tink?
> > That lasted for four hours or so, and, even though nothing was
> > conclusively proven, was informative and very entertaining.
>
> > What ever gift Jim
>
> I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Thompson scored a complete
> knockout. But Fetzer wouldn't take it according to the rules and went up
> on stage in an unplanned response. Debra Conway had to cut off his mic to
> maintain control.
>
> > > Jones had, Fetzer has it too. He had 'em all drinking the Kool Aide. They
> > > were even coming up with their own fantasy sightings of other Z-film
> > > versions.
>
> > You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the Zapruder in
> > NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day that there are
> > very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even though I don't buy
> > into Fetzer's specific claims.
>
> All one of you guys need to do is show it to me and I'll be on your side.
I will be presenting an article on my experiences.
> > > Jones had, Fetzer has it too. He had 'em all drinking the Kool Aide. They
> > > were even coming up with their own fantasy sightings of other Z-film
> > > versions.
>
> > You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the Zapruder in
> > NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day that there are
> > very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even though I don't buy
> > into Fetzer's specific claims.
>
> All one of you guys need to do is show it to me and I'll be on your side.
> But I believe DellaRosa and those others I can't remember their names were
> lying through their teeth. One of them was Scott something who in a
> revealing Fruedian like episode said he saw the word "SEX" imprinted all
> over the grassy areas of the Z-film.
security that LIFE promised for the film was violated almost from the
start. There are even intimations that some of the executives had
their own copies tucked away in their mansions in Greenwich, CT.
>
> > > I have already read a lite newsgroup debate between John and Fetzer back
> > > when they first came out with the Z-film bullshit. I recall John coming
> > > off much the better.
>
> > Your opinion. I doubt that I would agree.
>
> I think that's because it's personal with you.
I don't know about that. It is a fact that at least one Z-film was
> > > I have already read a lite newsgroup debate between John and Fetzer back
> > > when they first came out with the Z-film bullshit. I recall John coming
> > > off much the better.
>
> > Your opinion. I doubt that I would agree.
>
> I think that's because it's personal with you.
altered. It is spliced in at least two places. So the question then
becomes not whether or not it was altered but if it was done with
malice or not.
>Of course I agree with
> McAdams take generally but I have nothing against Fetzer. As much as he
> may be a bully, he is also very gracious. He's a good guy. He's just on
> the other side as far as I'm concerned.
the absurd to draw in the loonies so that 'logical' LNTs can then
destroy their credibility.
>
>
>
> > > Now, if you wanna see somebody absolutely OWN Fetzer,
> > > go get Josiah Thompson
>
> > I question that. Fetzer and Tink regularly hash things out on the Ed
> > Forum and I think they each hold their own pretty well. I do agree,
> > though, that Fetzer's bullying tactics can be very distracting; Tink does
> > not usually sink to quite that level, so his arguments are more clearly
> > defined.
>
> > I was a victim of Fetzer's bullying. He got me kick off of the DellaRosa
> > forum. I complained to the U, as he was using their email. I didn't want
> > that to happen to anyone else.
>
> Power is as power does. DellaRosa was just a tool of a master manipulator.
He had no backbone.
>
>
> > > Now, if you wanna see somebody absolutely OWN Fetzer,
> > > go get Josiah Thompson
>
> > I question that. Fetzer and Tink regularly hash things out on the Ed
> > Forum and I think they each hold their own pretty well. I do agree,
> > though, that Fetzer's bullying tactics can be very distracting; Tink does
> > not usually sink to quite that level, so his arguments are more clearly
> > defined.
>
> > I was a victim of Fetzer's bullying. He got me kick off of the DellaRosa
> > forum. I complained to the U, as he was using their email. I didn't want
> > that to happen to anyone else.
>
> Power is as power does. DellaRosa was just a tool of a master manipulator.
>
> You talk about McAdams comfort zone being AAJ. But you don't often see
> Fetzer posting here. Why? He can't control or manipulate it. I'm sure he
> would be welcome to show up and start debating any time he wants.
Anybody posting on aaj has to accept the slanted field. If one is a
> You talk about McAdams comfort zone being AAJ. But you don't often see
> Fetzer posting here. Why? He can't control or manipulate it. I'm sure he
> would be welcome to show up and start debating any time he wants.
CT there may be the added concerns of posts being rejected, or seeming
to go into a black hole. I doubt Fetzer would want to put himself at
that much of a disadvantage to McAdams.
>
> Btw, I got booted from the DellaRosa disinfo board for posting the theory
> that badgeman was the Coke bottle on the wall. These kind of people cannot
> tolerate anything that contradicts their limited view of things.
>
That's great. My sin was in pointing out that there was so little
> Btw, I got booted from the DellaRosa disinfo board for posting the theory
> that badgeman was the Coke bottle on the wall. These kind of people cannot
> tolerate anything that contradicts their limited view of things.
>
actual damage to the limo that it was far more likely the shots had
been the work of snipers rather than one disgruntled ex-Marine with a
$12 gun. The roars of disapproval could be heard all the way up to
the Boundary Waters!
Who knew? :-0
Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com
bar...@comcast.net
Mar 29, 2012, 1:27:00 PM3/29/12
to
On 29 Mar 2012 01:09:02 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It's always nice to see some consistency in life .... ROTFL! :-)
wrote:
Pamela Brown
Mar 30, 2012, 1:29:29 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29, 12:27 pm, barb...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2012 01:09:02 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
Same to you, Barb. Good to have you back.
> On 29 Mar 2012 01:09:02 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
timstter
Mar 30, 2012, 1:30:41 AM3/30/12
to
Translating Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mar 30, 2012, 1:33:46 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29, 1:09 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Pamela, I put your statements about the Z-film in parenthesis.
"You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the
Zapruder in NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day
that there are very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even
though I don't buy into Fetzer's specific claims."
Perhaps you saw a version made from the Warren Commission volumes of
evidence, Exhibit 885?
Was it dark and grainy, but substantially the same?
Remember as well that the Warren Commission volumes of evidence were
published before the election in November, and in there, we see
Exhibit 885. It is the same as the extant Zapruder film we've all seen
hundreds of times. There isn't any significant changes - the WC
volumes images are in black and white, and more grainy, and they
reversed a couple of frames, but it's not like 22 frames just after
the head shot were excised or anything.
Anyone showing a different zapruder film in Nov/Dec would have been
sitting on a gold mine. But I don't think that happened for two
reasons:
1. Zapruder verified the images in CE885 were the ones he took in his
testimony to the Warren Commission.
2. Zapruder verified the film was what he took in the trial of Clay
Shaw.
Bootleg copies were made during the Shaw trial. It wasn't any
different than the one we've all seen.
"I will be presenting an article on my experiences."
Looking forward to reading it. Do mention how sometimes memory plays
tricks on people.
"I can't account for anyone but myself. It does seem evident that the
security that LIFE promised for the film was violated almost from the
start. There are even intimations that some of the executives had
their own copies tucked away in their mansions in Greenwich, CT."
That makes it all the more difficult to get away with a forgery,
doesn't it? Once the original is copied and out there, to successfully
pull off an alteration, the conspirators would have to track down
every copy and alter those (or substitute copies of the fake for the
copies of the real zapruder film).
"... is a fact that at least one Z-film was altered. It is spliced in
the question answers itself - it was without malice.
Hank
Hi Pamela, I put your statements about the Z-film in parenthesis.
"You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the
Zapruder in NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day
that there are very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even
though I don't buy into Fetzer's specific claims."
evidence, Exhibit 885?
Was it dark and grainy, but substantially the same?
Remember as well that the Warren Commission volumes of evidence were
published before the election in November, and in there, we see
Exhibit 885. It is the same as the extant Zapruder film we've all seen
hundreds of times. There isn't any significant changes - the WC
volumes images are in black and white, and more grainy, and they
reversed a couple of frames, but it's not like 22 frames just after
the head shot were excised or anything.
Anyone showing a different zapruder film in Nov/Dec would have been
sitting on a gold mine. But I don't think that happened for two
reasons:
1. Zapruder verified the images in CE885 were the ones he took in his
testimony to the Warren Commission.
2. Zapruder verified the film was what he took in the trial of Clay
Shaw.
Bootleg copies were made during the Shaw trial. It wasn't any
different than the one we've all seen.
"I will be presenting an article on my experiences."
tricks on people.
"I can't account for anyone but myself. It does seem evident that the
security that LIFE promised for the film was violated almost from the
start. There are even intimations that some of the executives had
their own copies tucked away in their mansions in Greenwich, CT."
doesn't it? Once the original is copied and out there, to successfully
pull off an alteration, the conspirators would have to track down
every copy and alter those (or substitute copies of the fake for the
copies of the real zapruder film).
"... is a fact that at least one Z-film was altered. It is spliced in
at least two places. So the question then becomes not whether or not
it was altered but if it was done with malice or not."
Since this is only to one copy, and the other copies are not altered,
it was altered but if it was done with malice or not."
the question answers itself - it was without malice.
Hank
Bud
Mar 30, 2012, 1:34:16 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29, 1:09 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:52 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer.
> > > I'm not. McAdams is starting from a faulty axiom; namely, that the WC is
> > > *true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
> > > tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
>
> > Not really Pamela. That the WC got it right is the conclusion.
>
> I respectfully disagree. They began and ended with the axiom that LHO
> acted alone. That is circular reasoning. The axiom is the
> conclusion. No logic involved.
>
> > Unlike the
> > conspiracists who start with the axiom that there was a conspiracy.
>
> Not necessarily. It is possible for an historian to start with the
> question "what actually happened?"
> I
>
> > think you are projecting.
>
> I think I am being realistic. Even if LHO fired the shots, there is
> simply no way he acted alone. That is a fantasy.
Where do you see him needing help?
> On Mar 22, 5:52 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 21, 9:24 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm pretty sure John can hold his own debating Fetzer.
> > > I'm not. McAdams is starting from a faulty axiom; namely, that the WC is
> > > *true* and we should *believe* it. Fetzer, even with all his bullying
> > > tactics, would make mincemeat out of that.
>
> > Not really Pamela. That the WC got it right is the conclusion.
>
> I respectfully disagree. They began and ended with the axiom that LHO
> acted alone. That is circular reasoning. The axiom is the
> conclusion. No logic involved.
>
> > Unlike the
> > conspiracists who start with the axiom that there was a conspiracy.
>
> Not necessarily. It is possible for an historian to start with the
> question "what actually happened?"
> I
>
> > think you are projecting.
>
> I think I am being realistic. Even if LHO fired the shots, there is
> simply no way he acted alone. That is a fantasy.
> > > > But Gary Mack
> > > > wouldn't have a prayer. Too simple minded for an outright debate where you
> > > > have to think on your feet.
>
> > > Perhaps.
>
> > I'd dearly love to see it. But Mack reminds me of Dirty Harry's comment;
> > "A man's got to know his limitations." He would NEVER get into a debate
> > with someone like Fetzer. Hey, what would they be debating anyway?
>
> Fetzer already has Mack at a disadvantage by pointing out that he has
> claimed to be both a CT and, now, conveniently, an LNT.
when fired into by Marines with cheap rifles, no doubt.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 30, 2012, 3:23:59 PM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 1:33 AM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:09 am, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pamela, I put your statements about the Z-film in parenthesis.
>
> "You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the
> Zapruder in NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day
> that there are very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even
> though I don't buy into Fetzer's specific claims."
>
> Perhaps you saw a version made from the Warren Commission volumes of
> evidence, Exhibit 885?
>
No. What you are suggesting is possible, but no one did it.
> On Mar 29, 1:09 am, Pamela Brown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pamela, I put your statements about the Z-film in parenthesis.
>
> "You don't know who you are talking to. I saw a version of the
> Zapruder in NYC in Nov/Dec 1964. I have had no doubt since that day
> that there are very strange things going on with the Z-film(s), even
> though I don't buy into Fetzer's specific claims."
>
> Perhaps you saw a version made from the Warren Commission volumes of
> evidence, Exhibit 885?
>
> Was it dark and grainy, but substantially the same?
>
Early 70's.
> Remember as well that the Warren Commission volumes of evidence were
> published before the election in November, and in there, we see
> Exhibit 885. It is the same as the extant Zapruder film we've all seen
> hundreds of times. There isn't any significant changes - the WC
> volumes images are in black and white, and more grainy, and they
> reversed a couple of frames, but it's not like 22 frames just after
> the head shot were excised or anything.
>
> Anyone showing a different zapruder film in Nov/Dec would have been
> sitting on a gold mine. But I don't think that happened for two
> reasons:
>
> 1. Zapruder verified the images in CE885 were the ones he took in his
> testimony to the Warren Commission.
> 2. Zapruder verified the film was what he took in the trial of Clay
> Shaw.
>
> Bootleg copies were made during the Shaw trial. It wasn't any
> different than the one we've all seen.
>
>
> "I will be presenting an article on my experiences."
>
> Looking forward to reading it. Do mention how sometimes memory plays
> tricks on people.
>
>
> "I can't account for anyone but myself. It does seem evident that the
> security that LIFE promised for the film was violated almost from the
> start. There are even intimations that some of the executives had
> their own copies tucked away in their mansions in Greenwich, CT."
>
> That makes it all the more difficult to get away with a forgery,
> doesn't it? Once the original is copied and out there, to successfully
> pull off an alteration, the conspirators would have to track down
> every copy and alter those (or substitute copies of the fake for the
> copies of the real zapruder film).
>
And withhold it from the public.
>
> "... is a fact that at least one Z-film was altered. It is spliced in
> at least two places. So the question then becomes not whether or not
> it was altered but if it was done with malice or not."
>
> Since this is only to one copy, and the other copies are not altered,
> the question answers itself - it was without malice.
>
public. Just like the autopsy photos.
>
> Hank
>
pjsp...@aol.com
Mar 30, 2012, 4:42:17 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 20, 7:40 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> Fetzer:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> against Wrone.
>
> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> .John
>
> <Quote off>
>
> On 20 Mar 2012 08:51:46 -0400, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> I decided to make a counter offer. Here is the e-mail I just sent to
> Fetzer:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> against Wrone.
>
> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected
> conspiracy researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> .John
>
> <Quote off>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> ><Quote on>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >I got this in my e-mail this morning.
>
> ><Quote on>
>
> >From: "James Fetzer" <jfet...@d.umn.edu>
> >Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
> >Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
> >Subject: Invitation to a JFK Debate in honor of the 50th observance
> >Date: Mon, March 19, 2012 2:58 pm
> >To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> >Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
> ><ralph_cin...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbarr...@merr.com>
>
> >Cc: "Dr. Ralph Cinque" <doctorcin...@hotmail.com>,"Ralph Cinque"
> ><ralph_cin...@yahoo.com>,"Kevin Barrett" <kbarr...@merr.com>
>
>
> >> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> >> he is so inclined.
>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> From: doctorcin...@hotmail.com
> >> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly if
> >> he is so inclined.
>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> To: jmcad...@datasync.com
> >> Subject: debate invitation
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> >> Professor McAdams,
>
> >> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> >> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> >> here:
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> >> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> >> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> >> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> >> Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> >> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> >> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> >> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> >> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> >> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> >> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> >> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> >> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> >> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> >> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> >> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> >> Gary Mack", then visit
> >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
> >> he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-...>
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>
> >> Professor McAdams,
>
> >> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
> >> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
> >> here:
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>
> >> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
> >> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>
> >> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>
> >> Let me advance the following challenge:
>
> >> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you to
> >> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
> >> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my points,
> >> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
> >> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>
> >> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The 6th
> >> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline. Nevertheless, I
> >> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power to
> >> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome. We
> >> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>
> >> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs.
> >> Gary Mack", then visit
> >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
>
> >> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> >> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> >> Sincerely,
>
> >> James Fetzer
>
> ><Quote off>
>
> >.John
>
> >The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I think this is a wise decision. A debate with Fetzer would be high on
> >> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public issue,
> >> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you agree.
>
> >> Sincerely,
>
> >> James Fetzer
>
> ><Quote off>
>
> >.John
>
> >The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
circus-atmosphere, and would do little to illuminate the real issues, IMO.
It would leave the viewing public with the inaccurate impression Fetzer
represents the conspiracy theorist community as a whole, when many want
nothing to do with him. A debate with Wrone would be better, but still not
ideal. I've seen nothing from Wrone to indicate he's kept up with recent
developments, and his belief it's Oswald in the doorway, and not Lovelady,
makes me question his overall judgment.
If you hadn't already tried it, I'd say a debate with DiEugenio would be
better. Why not ask Anthony Marsh? I suspect that would be interesting.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 31, 2012, 10:06:42 PM3/31/12
to
> ideal. I've seen nothing from Wrone to indicate he's kept up with recent
> developments, and his belief it's Oswald in the doorway, and not Lovelady,
> makes me question his overall judgment.
>
> If you hadn't already tried it, I'd say a debate with DiEugenio would be
> better. Why not ask Anthony Marsh? I suspect that would be interesting.
>
0 new messages