My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Charles Drago]

Charles:

The intensification of the LBJ-as-mastermind operation has been noted for some months now and is openly scheduled to continue through the fall. The work of one of its prime Facilitators, "author" Phillip Nelson (prime exponent of the "mastermind" characterization), recently was referenced on this forum and prompted a generally admirable JFK assassination author to note that we are obliged by the dictates of professional courtesy not to challenge the motives of our fellow correspondents, but rather to bow from the waist (my description) and politely "agree to disagree" with them when necessary.

Where does such courtesy end?

I presume you are referring to McBride here. I found this call for a polite disengagement to be disappointing on his part. Saying we must 'agree to disagree' should only come after every effort has been expended to be understand the argument of the other. But when the concern is to promote a book, one would never want to engage in a genuine dialogue which would expose its weaknesses. It would hurt business.

Not exactly Lauren. It was more Charles bringing off forum discussions here and due to recent correspondence I take it as a jab at Dawn and putting words in her mouth of which she never said.

Let me set the record straight insofar as Magda is attempting -- without success -- to divine my intent.

I did NOT "jab at dawn." Not intentionally. Not unintentionally.

I did not "put words in her mouth." Not intentionally. Not unintentionally.

For future reference: I alone speak for myself. Questions about what I write should be addressed to me, and third-party analyses of my work should be avoided like the plague -- and for reasons that are glaringly obvious right here.

Rather, I was commenting sarcastically on what for me is the morally indefensible policy of permitting, in this case, JFK assassination Facilitators access to the safe haven represented by many Internet forums' rules of engagement that prohibit exposure of their underlying agendas simply because they are forum members.

In the case of Nelson, the absurdity of his LBJ-as-mastermind hypothesis has been exposed repeatedly and in scholarly fashions.

But our job does not end with said exposure.

Our job is to attempt to discover the motives for Nelson's madness.

I have no smoking gun, but in my extremely well-informed opinion Nelson is, wittingly or otherwise, aiding and abetting the killers of JFK.

I do NOT "agree to disagree" with him. I do NOT extend respect or collegiality to him.

The stakes are too high.

[T]he merits or lack of merits of any book are absolutely fair game. Attacking the forum members is not.[

To the everlasting credit of DPF's founders, our forum does not accept applications for membership from known agents provocateur and, in the JFK case, proponents of the lone nut lie. However, in my opinion we drop the ball when we insist upon "agreeing to disagree" with more subtly problematic correspondents who are more skillful at masking their likely sinister intentions and thus find refuge in DPF's rules.[/QUOTE]

But keeping the means of basic civil communication open is important. Personal attacks just shut it all down.

When pointing out what for me is the lunacy of Joseph McBride's "agree to disagree" dictum, I am NOT engaging in a "personal attack" -- whatever that means.

Rather, I am attacking the "agree to disagree" argument that this fine and often noble writer is making in this instance.

Does Mr. McBride "agree to disagree" with Bugliosi? Posner? Arlen Specter? Bob Blakey?

Alan Fucking Dulles?