PDA

View Full Version : The Anti-James Douglass Appears



Charles Drago
02-14-2009, 07:17 PM
It's the old "level the playing field" gambit.

With the publication of his JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass has put the fear of God -- quite literally, I think -- in some very powerful people.

The current directors of the JFK cover-up must neutralize the power of Douglass' argument to inform, enlighten, and empower. Since they cannot impugn his credentials or integrity, they are forced to counter with the presentation of similarly credentialed -- at least at first glance -- authority.

Enter one Edward Feser, who describes himself thusly: "I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective."

Among Feser's published works we find The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism; Locke; The Cambridge Companion to Hayek; Philosophy of Mind; and On Nozick.

In addition, he is a darling of National Review magazine.

On January 26 of this year, Feser published on his blog an extended essay, "The Problem with Conspiracy Theories," which is accessible at:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/trouble-with-conspiracy-theories.html

As I wrote in my initial response thereon:

Quoting Feser: "So, structurally, there is just no plausible way for an 'inside job' conspiracy of the JFK assassination or 9/11 type to work."

To be charitable: pure, unadulterated lunacy -- psychobabble and pseudo-history in service to the grandest illusion.

In re the JFK assassination: Nothing stated in the entire essay addresses the irrefutable physical, medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, audio, and additional forensic and circumstantial evidence -- that is, proof -- of conspiracy which, honestly and deeply analyzed, establishes beyond all doubt the identities and motives of the top tier conspirators.

This is nothing more than an old pig in a new dress. See, "People can't believe a nobody like LHO killed a world-historic leader."

And then we have, again quoting the great philosopher: "I read a great deal about the JFK assassination case, and was even convinced for a time that there was a conspiracy involving the government. While I no longer believe that – I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone – I concede that there are certain pieces of evidence that might lead a reasonable person who hasn’t investigated the case very deeply to doubt the 'official story.'"

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspirators killed the president is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The author is encouraged to explain his essay accordingly.

I subsequently posted this:

The timing of the appearance of Mr. Feser's JFK commentary is, at the very least, thought-provoking.

This self-described bearer of "a traditional Roman Catholic perspective" weighs in on the Dallas conspiracy in the wake of James Douglass' JFK and the Unthinkable.

Douglass is a Thomas Merton scholar, a celebrated peace activist, and, with his wife Shelley, is the co-founder of Mary's House, a Catholic Worker house of hospitality in Birmingham, Alabama. His books include "The Nonviolent Cross," "The Nonviolent Coming of God," and "Resistance and Contemplation."

Mr. Feser, it seems, is being offered in a classic "level the playing field" gambit.

Too little, too late.

As always, the assassins' surrogates are targeting history.

A Christian scholar appears to reveal the identities and motives of the sponsors of JFK's murder.

An ersatz Christian scholar is produced by the Unspeakable to "argue" against the existence of the Unspeakable.

The message to history: See, you can go either way on this.

Mr. Douglass, if you are within sight of these words, would you care to challenge Feser?

You may use this forum freely, without editorial interference.

Peter Lemkin
02-14-2009, 07:58 PM
clone a bit of Pozner to a bit of Russo to a bit of [fill in the blank] CIA/FBI/USG/MSM spokesperson-liar and voila - a Frankenfraud authority on JFK. One must give the propagandists for the Big Lie one thing - they don't sleep and they don't let up.:elefante:

Charles Drago
02-14-2009, 08:36 PM
How very true.

At another widely respected -- if somewhat problematic -- forum on which deep political subject matter is discussed, a notorious correspondent who in fact is merely an empty vessel through which higher ranking acolytes of the Unspeakable spread their propaganda recently began to venture into JFK territory.

For years this persona has served to deflect, dilute, and otherwise disrupt pages devoted to 9-11 research and, in general, subjects that draw the Unspeakable's attention. But it has not been applied to JFK assassination discussions until now.

On cue, otherwise well-intentioned and, in some cases, even learned JFK researchers are being drawn into debate with this persona -- for the sake of clarity let's refer to it as Big Nicotine.

The only morally acceptable response is to continue to expose Big Nicotine for what it is -- as I have done repeatedly on the aforementioned site. I have exposed its nature as a vessel for multiple posters by noting its absurdly wide and instantly applied arrays of expertise and laughably inconsistent usage of the English language. Others who regularly post on these pages have done likewise.

Yet Big Nicotine continues to wreak havoc at the other forum and elsewhere.

Given the background of Big Nicotine's legend, or overt persona, we should not be surprised. As the name I've chosen for him indicates, he is the spawn of one of the Unspeakable's most reprehensible errand boys.

Lest anyone doubt the presence of the Unspeakable among us today.

Peter Lemkin
02-14-2009, 09:10 PM
"Lest anyone doubt the presence of the Unspeakable among us today."
Charles, I personally think they [that's 'they'] have proliferated in numbers and one can't doubt their presence at any point in history from day one to tomorrow! Given their increased numbers, we must redouble our efforts to fight them. This is the ultimate battle - for the truth of history and the morality [I'd even say existance] of the future. All must stake their picket-pins in the ground and fight to the end - refusing to move, unless it is forward. The Unspeakable in 1963 was childsplay compared to today, IMO. No change in substance, only in its effect and power over the society and planet, at large. From the day the first witnesses started to speak the truth and the first critics began to criticize, they [that's 'they] have inserted themselves, invented experts and writers on the subject, false witnesses and tampered and killed real one, etc. Douglass should take it as a backhanded compliment - they feared his book and truth enoughtve to have to try to neutralized it. You can't neutralize the Truth, only obscure it temporarily - and the longer one does so, the greater ther price to be paid [often by the wrong persons, sadly].

Magda Hassan
02-15-2009, 06:32 AM
God, where did this reactionary right wing dis-info agent and god botherer come from? Looking at his web site and blog he seems to have arrived on the scene fully formed and ready to go. Even to the point of disclaiming his earlier writings.


NOTE: The older an article, the less likely the author is to continue to hold the views expressed in it. In particular, he would now repudiate the libertarianism and philosophical naturalism evident in some of the earlier pieces.

Some one who repudiates philosophical naturalism rings alarm bells for me. Some one who rejects the scientific method yet supports the 'invisible' hand of the market place and believes that there is a parking spot god out there cannot be taken seriously. He looks likes someone who is trying to mentally conform and fit events to a proscribed view of the world (some officially approved variant of right wing Catholicism I suppose).

Certainly looks like he is being used as the antidote to Douglass mind expanding research. Though being an intellectual hack he is no where near in the same league as Douglass in more ways than one. When I first saw Fesser's article it was posted on another forum by someone I consider to be not very well read and not noted for thinking for themselves. I did wonder where such a mentally unadventurous person would have found such an article unless it was handed to them to disseminate. I bet they haven't read Douglass. That wasn't handed to them to read and might be too challenging.

Just a few criticisms of the 'essay'.

Since when was the US a Liberal Democracy? It is a republic not a democracy. It has spent most of its existence trying to crush democracy when ever they saw it. Firstly, wiping out the indigenous, building a society on slavery, disenfranchising the 'freed' slaves and no votes for women or poor. Then there are the armed expeditions outside of the country to exterminate democracy in other places in the world. A work in progress.

He seems to believe that there is a real actual difference between the Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber administrations. The because of the bureaucratic interests and the 'too powerful' unions (in the US?!) and the 'lack' of a profit motive (in a society built on it?) there would be no incentive be be involved in a conspiracy. Never mind that he contradicts himself in the next paragraph by saying the leaders of the Soviet Union really did conspire to do evil (what exactly?) and were able to achieve this despite their notoriously cumbersome bureaucracy. I am sure Fesser would say there were no unions in the USSR. Mmmm..... Maybe he didn't study logic at philosophy school.


Of course, some conspiracy theorists will insist that the adversarial, checks-and-balances nature of liberal democracies and their tolerant ethos are themselves just part of the illusion created by the conspirators.

And of course those that don't believe there are conspiracies will persist in the fantasy that the US is a liberal democracy and/or that persons in a liberal democracy would never be involved in a conspiracy and that any conspiracies that occur with in a liberal democracy are just an illusion created by the observer.


Somehow, even the fact that conspiracy theorists are perfectly free to publish their books, organize rallies, etc. in a way they would not for a moment be able to do in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia is nevertheless just part of a more subtle and diabolical form of police state.

Somehow Fesser seems to have missed the introduction of the anti-terrorists laws patriot act etc. Maybe he can talk to Leonard Peltier and the Cuban 5 about their experiences of justice and cheques and balances and those of thousands of other prisoners in jail for being problematic to the PTB. Try getting on the MSM with anything other than official reality of any kind and see how much air time you get. Just because there is a media doesn't mean they have to let everyone play. Just because you can have a rally for something doesn't mean any one is listening let alone going to do anything. Gives the illusion of freedom meanwhile it is business as usual.

Fesser regards the Vietnam war as a just war!


But outright murder is extremely rare, and usually folded into some legitimate context so as to make it seem justifiable (e.g. My Lai or the firebombing of Dresden, atrocities committed in the course of otherwise just wars).

He just ignores or justifies the 2 million (conservative estimate) dead many more maimed and traumatised for life and the destruction of a whole country and neighbouring countries that never did anything to the US (a familiar story) Never mind that all the post WW2 surplus military was sent to Korea and Vietnam and they were going to have their war come what may and no one, not even a president, was going to stand in their way. Never mind Operation Phoenix. Mai Lai was an exception to the rule? Yeah.

I just love it how time and time again the anti-conspiracy white wash types such as Fesser neglect to mention or notice that according to the 'official' version of the JFK assassination it is accepted that it is a conspiracy. They prefer to stay in the past with the Warren Commission report and use its discredited findings as 'proof'. The evidence of a conspiracy exist with in the WC report and with much of the evidence, witness reports and information that has come since then.


I read a great deal about the JFK assassination case, and was even convinced for a time that there was a conspiracy involving the government. While I no longer believe that – I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone – I concede that there are certain pieces of evidence (e.g. the backward movement of Kennedy’s head, Ruby’s assassination of Oswald) that might lead a reasonable person who hasn’t investigated the case very deeply to doubt the “official story.”

I read a great deal of the bible once, and was even convinced for a time that there was a God. But after the age of 8 I used my own mind and came to the conclusion that it was mostly fiction and life and history was quite different. Well as someone who repudiates natural philosophy and scientific method I would expect nothing else from Fesser. I suppose he now sits around these days working out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or in wonder at the reality of transubstantiation or how the invisible hand of the market place will magically solve the economic crisis.


Why, then, do people fall for these theories? Largely out of simple intellectual error. But what makes someone susceptible of this particular kind of error?

Do they fall for any theories at all? Or do they come to other conclusions with more evidence than in 'official' theories? Why does Fesser fall for the fairy tale of the American myth and Jesus and his birth and death and supposed miracles? The garden of Eden? Yet he ignores the cavernous hole in the back of JFK's head and the backward movement at the point of bullet impact. He ignores the obvious and common sense. Or does he think the bible is an historical truth as he does the Warren Commission (while rejecting the HSCA report)?

Oh, god, that's enough. It's been amusing but I have more interesting things to do like clean the kitty litter tray. I'm glad I'm not paying good money for one of his courses in 'philosophy'. Wonder what his real job is?

Peter Lemkin
02-15-2009, 08:25 AM
Magda, Something in your last post made me think it might be a good idea [from the standpoint of the Deep Government] to no longer have Presidents et al. swear an oath using the Christian Bible, but rather with their hand placed on a copy of the Warren Report - all 28 volumes should just about reach the correct height. That would, in fact and sadly, be a more 'in tune' 'ethical' and 'moral' tome for those things they will be called upon to uphold and proceed based on.

Magda Hassan
02-15-2009, 08:39 AM
Well Peter, it certainly seems to be a sacred (cow) text for some who believe in it. :sheep:

David Guyatt
02-15-2009, 10:22 AM
God, where did this reactionary right wing dis-info agent and god botherer come from? Looking at his web site and blog he seems to have arrived on the scene fully formed and ready to go.


Well, as we here know, at least one other protagonist similarly arrived on the scene in 2005, equally fully formed and ready to go - with no historical background (not even one prior utterance) to show his development to speak with knowledge on these subjects. Then in a period of a few months he was all over various forums like a rash spouting confusion like an old debunking hand.

Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

Paul Rigby
02-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

Langley High, or MIT?

David Guyatt
02-15-2009, 11:26 AM
Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

Langley High, or MIT?
:top:

Charles Drago
02-15-2009, 01:45 PM
The School of the Un-Americas.

Dawn Meredith
02-15-2009, 02:20 PM
I love then tendancy of this lying fools to say "I used to believe in a conspiracy" but then I came to my senses. An effort to attempt to demonstrate that anyone who reads enough on the subject will reject conspiracy, when the truth is the total opposite.
CD: Jim Douglas is not online so he cannot comment here.

Dawn

Charles Drago
01-18-2011, 09:41 PM
I've been asked to redirect attention to this thread and futher comment upon its overarching theme.

I'm glad to do so for one reason: The enemy never will attempt to purge a James Douglass. Rather, they will create and sponsor the arrival of a balancing act in order to perpetuate the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and the greater truth. In such a fashion they perpetuate uncertainty of the sort that manifests in, among other phenomena, the use by some of our community's most important thinkers of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe themselves.

Conspiracy "theory"???

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the president was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

No "theory" in evidence here.

Watch how the "anti's" will proliferate as we near the 50th anniversary of JFK's slaughter.

Ed Jewett
01-19-2011, 02:15 AM
Pass the vomit bucket over this way, please.

Peter, your idea of the stacked Warren volumes is priceless but it must be changed to add the 9/11 tripe as well. Should this require Presidents of increased stature, that won't matter since we have them pre-starched these days anyway. In time, we will have giants. Perhaps we can pray for moral giants.

Phil Dragoo
01-19-2011, 09:37 AM
The Trouble With Edward Feser
3793 Words: Lalala I Can't Hear You


Feser the professor's feeling pretty, and witty, and ga-ay
but he hasn't anything cogent to say:


Precisely his purpose as a downstream Swiss-Army-knife extension of the publication of the CIA groupie-founder of NatRev.


Oswald fired no rifle that day, and no one in that location fired any projectile into the president's temple or throat, or at James Tague.


No one ever saw Oswald with that rifle, but Oswald was operating for and operated by three intelligence agencies, and the net result of the murder of the president was the war he refused to fight, and the continued thriving of the agency he intended to emasculate.


3793 too-cute words amounting to lalala I can't hear you as Eddie pirouettes in a tutu of frothy philosophical phrases before an audience of closet-nazis.

Albert Doyle
01-19-2011, 03:22 PM
Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?


I've heard of a school called the Albert Schweitzer College but I can't recall who told me. There's another one too. The Patrice Lumumba...

Charles Drago
01-19-2011, 03:50 PM
The long, convoluted, meagerly investigated Albert Schweitzer College -- to which Lee Harvey Oswald applied, was accepted, but never attended -- is a key subject in George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance (ACA).

I am pleased to announce that the Trine Day edition of ACA will be published in April. It is in most respects superior to the first edition, so by all means wait for the new, paperback version.

You may pre-order it from Amazon right now.

Until then, know at Albert Schweitzer College was NOT a venue for training intelligence assets. Far from it.

Seamus Coogan
01-19-2011, 09:41 PM
The long, convoluted, meagerly investigated Albert Schweitzer College -- to which Lee Harvey Oswald applied, was accepted, but never attended -- is a key subject in George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance (ACA).

I am pleased to announce that the Trine Day edition of ACA will be published in April. It is in most respects superior to the first edition, so by all means wait for the new, paperback version.

You may pre-order it from Amazon right now.

Until then, know at Albert Schweitzer College was NOT a venue for training intelligence assets. Far from it.


Cool bananas: Thats one book I've wanted for quite some time after reading the review on CTKA. But as for the Anti Douglas amongst us CD I think that one of the most insidious and outright crazy things I have ever seen is a certain researcher (lets call him by his stage name 'Ron') comparing Phil Nelsons, Barr McClellans and Judyth Bakers crud alongside Douglas's and not only that then say 'The Unspeakable' fully supports the BS in those works.

These are apostles Douglas certainly doesn't need. Imagine falsely having your work associated with that wash. Very unclean and a total perversion of gods work.

Indeed, give it time. Judyth Baker will soon claim she had an affair with Jim Douglas and probably yourself. Barr McClellan is also probably going to write a book using Rob Morrow and Phil Nelson as 'experts' on the case. Ron, well I don't care for much of what he writes anyhow, bar its comedy value :flypig::piethrow:

Ed Jewett
01-19-2011, 09:57 PM
The long, convoluted, meagerly investigated Albert Schweitzer College -- to which Lee Harvey Oswald applied, was accepted, but never attended -- is a key subject in George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance (ACA).

I am pleased to announce that the Trine Day edition of ACA will be published in April. It is in most respects superior to the first edition, so by all means wait for the new, paperback version.

You may pre-order it from Amazon right now.

Until then, know at Albert Schweitzer College was NOT a venue for training intelligence assets. Far from it.


Charles, April is far away, but I eagerly look forward to reading "Arrogance". In the interim, for a forthcoming February sabbatical, I have ordered David DeGraw's new book, The Road Through 2012 (http://ampedstatus.com/word-from-the-watchtower-a-hard-rain-is-going-to-fall-introduction-to-the-road-through-2012-revolution-or-world-war-iii), as well as the Levenda trio from Trine-Day. The publisher informs me I am not likely to be the same person I was before reading the grimoire of Sinister Forces, so send Samoyeds with small casks of Drambuie if I do not resurface by March.

Charles Drago
01-19-2011, 10:10 PM
The long, convoluted, meagerly investigated Albert Schweitzer College -- to which Lee Harvey Oswald applied, was accepted, but never attended -- is a key subject in George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance (ACA).

I am pleased to announce that the Trine Day edition of ACA will be published in April. It is in most respects superior to the first edition, so by all means wait for the new, paperback version.

You may pre-order it from Amazon right now.

Until then, know at Albert Schweitzer College was NOT a venue for training intelligence assets. Far from it.


Cool bananas: Thats one book I've wanted for quite some time after reading the review on CTKA. But as for the Anti Douglas amongst us CD I think that one of the most insidious and outright crazy things I have ever seen is a certain researcher (lets call him by his stage name 'Ron') comparing Phil Nelsons, Barr McClellans and Judyth Bakers crud alongside Douglas's and not only that then say 'The Unspeakable' fully supports the BS in those works.

These are apostles Douglas certainly doesn't need. Imagine falsely having your work associated with that wash. Very unclean and a total perversion of gods work.

Indeed, give it time. Judyth Baker will soon claim she had an affair with Jim Douglas and probably yourself. Barr McClellan is also probably going to write a book using Rob Morrow and Phil Nelson as 'experts' on the case. Ron, well I don't care for much of what he writes anyhow, bar its comedy value :flypig::piethrow:

Greetings, Seamus,

I'm glad you're back here at DPF. I've been impressed by much of your work and look forward to reading more.

And yes, you're absolutely correct about how disinformationalists will attempt A) to dignify their own work, and B) to taint Douglass (for different audiences, of course) by favorably comparing their trash to his masterpiece.

Charles

Charles Drago
01-19-2011, 10:14 PM
Charles, April is far away, but I eagerly look forward to reading "Arrogance". In the interim, for a forthcoming February sabbatical, I have ordered David DeGraw's new book, The Road Through 2012 (http://ampedstatus.com/word-from-the-watchtower-a-hard-rain-is-going-to-fall-introduction-to-the-road-through-2012-revolution-or-world-war-iii), as well as the Levenda trio from Trine-Day. The publisher informs me I am not likely to be the same person I was before reading the grimoire of Sinister Forces, so send Samoyeds with small casks of Drambuie if I do not resurface by March.

Ed,

The Sinister Forces trilogy will indeed have a major, positive, long-lasting, far-reaching impact on your research and, I daresay, on your life. I'm about to begin my second read-through. So take your good time, and in the process you'll have one.

Meanwhile, booze and pups are on stand-by.

Charles

Magda Hassan
01-19-2011, 11:44 PM
I've heard of a school called the Albert Schweitzer College but I can't recall who told me. There's another one too. The Patrice Lumumba...
Patrice Lumumba was a university in Moscow where foreign student from around the world but especially the so called third world could study for free as they were mostly denied access to the educational institutions of the west on racial or financial grounds.

Seamus Coogan
01-20-2011, 02:33 AM
Greetings, Seamus,

I'm glad you're back here at DPF. I've been impressed by much of your work and look forward to reading more.

And yes, you're absolutely correct about how disinformationalists will attempt A) to dignify their own work, and B) to taint Douglass (for different audiences, of course) by favorably comparing their trash to his masterpiece.

Charles

Cheers CD:

Its good to see I have finally made myself 'useful' in your eyes lol. Indeed your quote I used in Ventura summed up what I was thinking about that aspect of the show completely.

It was the unspeakable 'hijacking' event which transpired on here recently that alerted me to the fact I was still a member. Now after my unspeakably bad first impression I made on here I asked the unspeakable person in question to delete me from all memory and I got the di di mau:bolt:outta here. She kindly didn't and it wasn't until I wound up with an email telling me about the ongoing issues you all faced that I realised I had been on the books for an unspeakable amount of time.

What drew my attention DPFwards again was Magda's bullying me to join up (lol-I jest CD my arm is out of its cast now) the good moderation, your humour and the extremely rude smilies I have no doubt you are probably responsible for!

But most importantly it was an unspeakable researchers outright embarrassing comparisons to 'The Unspeakable' and his unspeakable attacks on yourself and Jim DiEugenio here and on others in many places that caught my imagination. You see the unspeakable isn't on Lancer where I reside with my good budy Al Doyle.

I'd said too Magda that I'd stay off of the books here because I feared I would join up and say some rather unspeakable things and probably get in trouble again lol.

But after seeing the unspeakable's constant dalliances with some dubiously sourced researchers I slipped my leash.

In particularly after I saw Jim Di mention that a number of younger researchers (of which I am one) find unspeakable an extremely bad one. Indeed in many ways the weakest link in JFK research. Now that really takes some beating as you've seen CD John Hankey is pretty near unspeakable himself.

I sought to add my voice in agreement as it was I who pointed this fact out to the unspeakable one via Martin Hay on Spartacus. It's extremely truthful that the next crop of researchers don't want a bar of unspeakables BS.

He is (sad to say CD) a burden for your generation to bare.

So to give the senior toilers here a bit of hope in amidst this sea of unspeakable shite:noblesteed:I nobley joined up to defend the honour of my elders and on the very day I signed up as fate had it Dawn had locked up the forum some hours before lol!

Maybe she had a premonition lol.

Anyhow, I shan't harp on about the unspeakable he is flogging a dead horse with his views and we are flogging one by mentioning his ways. :deadhorse:

But Drago old son if but for the unspeakable :darthvader: I wouldn't have returned to your embrace lerv lol .

Keith Millea
01-20-2011, 03:16 AM
di di mau

Haven't seen that one in a while. :happydrinks:

Magda Hassan
01-20-2011, 03:17 AM
Welcome back Seamus! :cheer:
Thanks for your kind words and your defense of reason :worship:
Hope you have some fun here and I'll be looking forward to your posts. :coffeescreen:

Seamus Coogan
01-20-2011, 03:43 AM
di di mau

Haven't seen that one in a while. :happydrinks:

Yeah my faves actually the smiley on the horse taking a dump. Di di mau! I used to think it was actually a swear word in Vietnamese as in 'Get the #$%^ out!' but in reality it is merely 'get out' used in a negative or forceful tense apparently so you can imagine my dissapointment with Platoon, Hamburger Hill and Tour of Duty.

Seamus Coogan
01-20-2011, 03:44 AM
Welcome back Seamus! :cheer:
Thanks for your kind words and your defense of reason :worship:
Hope you have some fun here and I'll be looking forward to your posts. :coffeescreen:

Its good to be back at Wayne Manor Alfred lol!

Keith Millea
01-20-2011, 04:17 AM
di di mau

Haven't seen that one in a while. :happydrinks:

Yeah my faves actually the smiley on the horse taking a dump. Di di mau! I used to think it was actually a swear word in Vietnamese as in 'Get the #$%^ out!' but in reality it is merely 'get out' used in a negative or forceful tense apparently so you can imagine my dissapointment with Platoon, Hamburger Hill and Tour of Duty.


Oh,believe me Seamus,it was used most prominently as 'Get the #$%^ out!'

Seamus Coogan
01-20-2011, 07:44 AM
di di mau

Haven't seen that one in a while. :happydrinks:

Yeah my faves actually the smiley on the horse taking a dump. Di di mau! I used to think it was actually a swear word in Vietnamese as in 'Get the #$%^ out!' but in reality it is merely 'get out' used in a negative or forceful tense apparently so you can imagine my dissapointment with Platoon, Hamburger Hill and Tour of Duty.


Oh,believe me Seamus,it was used most prominently as 'Get the #$%^ out!'

Hahahaha I feel a sense of melodramatic satisfaction once more thanks mate. Did you serve in the army by any chance?:unclesam:

Keith Millea
01-20-2011, 04:26 PM
Hahahaha I feel a sense of melodramatic satisfaction once more thanks mate. Did you serve in the army by any chance?:unclesam:

I served,I saw,and I cuss way too much! :mexican:

:hobbyhorse:

Seamus Coogan
01-20-2011, 04:56 PM
Hahahaha I feel a sense of melodramatic satisfaction once more thanks mate. Did you serve in the army by any chance?:unclesam:

I served,I saw,and I cuss way too much! :mexican:

:hobbyhorse:

Makes two Keith mate. What :curtain: theatre did you serve? In Vietnam? It's always cool too talk to a vet. But I understand it's not so cool for Vets to talk themselves. You guys saw a whole heap of stuff I don't have any business prying into. But how well do you feel Jim Douglas handled the Vietnam stuff? I agree with Jim Di (yes we do disagree from time to time lol) CD and others that its a real strength of the book that the Anti Douglas forces really can't get a lid on.

Jan Klimkowski
01-20-2011, 07:12 PM
Seamus - without divulging any deep confidences, you should be aware that Charles - as the possessor of an eloquent pen - is not a natural fan of "smilies" or "emoticons".

Fortunately, on this matter, the majority prevailed..... :wirlitzer:

Keith Millea
01-20-2011, 07:24 PM
Yes,it was Vietnam.Seamus,I'm not a JFK researcher,and have not read the Douglas book.I've inserted myself into the JFK arena only a handful of times,and have managed to stuff my mouth with both feet in a few of those occasions.I'm going to leave these issues for the experts.I'm all ears..........

Seamus Coogan
01-21-2011, 12:45 AM
Seamus - without divulging any deep confidences, you should be aware that Charles - as the possessor of an eloquent pen - is not a natural fan of "smilies" or "emoticons".

Fortunately, on this matter, the majority prevailed..... :wirlitzer:
Thats quite a laugh I thought with the ribald nature of them they would be right up his alley so to speak. I should've learn't a long time ago its always the quiet ones lol!

Seamus Coogan
01-21-2011, 01:09 AM
Yes,it was Vietnam.Seamus,I'm not a JFK researcher,and have not read the Douglas book.I've inserted myself into the JFK arena only a handful of times,and have managed to stuff my mouth with both feet in a few of those occasions.I'm going to leave these issues for the experts.I'm all ears..........

Well its cool Keith there's way to many big mouths like me running around anyhow. Its great to know people wanna listen on the forums and soak it in. As I was saying about the Smilies it's always the quiet ones. But yeah man the experts say read that book bud. In fact its not the experts good is compelling you too lol.

Be interesting to get your feed back on it mate.

Bernice Moore
01-24-2011, 03:41 AM
Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

Langley High, or MIT?
hey paul, must be one or tother or similar not only are they ready to go, but have been and are armed with the feeding of their information, they simply copy and post in reply or in thread starters, like fountains, with reams of disinformation, all typed up, seconded and presented, and some with even the following arguments known of course, to be asked,all dispersed with answers within their posts, and all supplied for free of course, :lol:but paid for by american tax dollars...:jawdrop::jawdrop:b