|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wikipedia is a sham for people who don't want to do their own research.
People like Wikipedophilias, who view the world as liberal or conservative, right wing and left wing, don't realize that we live in a new world that can't be so classified, and that information is neutral, either correct or incorrect, right or wrong.
It's a shame however, that some legitimate sites link to sites like McAdams, Meyers, Reitzes, Raham and company, as if they are reliable.
Wikipedia is also part of Operation Mockingbird. The continuing operation to cover up the Assassination:
Now is good time to use the "Twelfth Night" as a parallel; Malvolio and his closing remark "I'll be revenged upon the pack of you". Shakespeare assumes that his audience (especially the groundlings) would know a lot about Puritan religious doctrine, since he ridicules it in such detail in the play. And that Puritans were especially pissed off with the irreverent treatment they got in theatres.
Twenty years later, Malvolio's buddies were heading for New England on the Mayflower � with one of their aims being to create a society where smart asses like Shakespeare wouldn't have a voice.
In other words, hand-in-hand with the US aspiration towards freedom is the US aspiration towards total ideological control. It was a very common phenomenon in the Soviet Union, of course, but I reckon that Europe has learned (via very painful lessons called things like the Thirty Years War) to tolerate at least the expression of other opinions. This also happens to be an important element of what's called 'western scientific method'.
Let's just hope that the Americans manage to win their country back from the modern-day Malvolios � |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Regicide: how many times are you going to cut-and-paste and repeat this exact same post?
In effect, you are hanging propaganda posters here and in the Off-Topic forum. |
It is not my fault there are multiple posts on this subject. I started none. Complain to the managment.
There is something I believe in and have done a lot of research on that subject. I focus on a few subjects and have spent a lot of time and money researching these.
It seems you are out to save the world ( or the people on this forum) by sticking your two cents into every subject that you disagree with.
I urge other forum members to think for yourselves and do your own research on topics of interest. Don't take my word for it, don't take places like Wikipedia for it, and most definitely , dont take "Gophers" many words and posts for it.
"propaganda" = Something Gopher doesnt agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| There is something I believe in and have done a lot of research on that subject. I focus on a few subjects and have spent a lot of time and money researching these... |
Regicide: it sounds to me as if you have wasted your time and money. In any case, where have you been? Which archives and libraries? Who funded you? Have you presented or published anything? If so, where?
Lee Harvey Oswald likely acted alone when assassinating JFK. And the Warren Commission findings are generally accepted. More details will always come to light as time passes. But the broad outlines of the story will not likely change at all. And personally, I think you and several others here are simply full of shit.
So stop slandering Ford. He was a good, honest man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
| There is something I believe in and have done a lot of research on that subject. I focus on a few subjects and have spent a lot of time and money researching these... |
Regicide: it sounds to me as if you have wasted your time and money. In any case, where have you been? Which archives and libraries? Who funded you? Have you presented or published anything? If so, where?
Lee Harvey Oswald likely acted alone when assassinating JFK.
Lee Harvey Oswald tested negative on his pariffin test for nitrates. He did not even fire a rifle that day!!
And the Warren Commission findings are generally accepted. More details will always come to light as time passes. But the broad outlines of the story will not likely change at all. And personally, I think you and several others here are simply full of *beep*.
So stop slandering Ford. He was a good, honest man. |
I rest my case. "Gophers" middle name is " I am always right"
People like you are dangerous , however. You have done little or no research and follow the party line. Even the ARRB , as quoted in my post, ( did you even read that) exposed Ford and the Warren Commission's lies. This would make my comments true and not slanderous. You dont even know the meaning of that simple word. You also contribute nothing to this thread or any other. You spend your time putting down others.
Ford may have been a good human being, but he lied to the American people about the Assassination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| Ford...lied to the American people... |
Regicide: I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion. What evidence did you examine, for example?
Please do not post conspiracy-theory links. Just talk about it -- this set of primary documents at this archive or library, for example. Or this former official's memoirs. Whatever.
If you have done the research that you claim you have, you ought to be able to summarize your research strategies and findings in a short synopsis. So again, then, please share with us how you know what you so confidently assert here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
Wikipedia is a sham for people who don't want to do their own research.
People like Wikipedophilias, who view the world as liberal or conservative, right wing and left wing, don't realize that we live in a new world that can't be so classified, and that information is neutral, either correct or incorrect, right or wrong.
It's a shame however, that some legitimate sites link to sites like McAdams, Meyers, Reitzes, Raham and company, as if they are reliable.
Wikipedia is also part of Operation Mockingbird. The continuing operation to cover up the Assassination:
Now is good time to use the "Twelfth Night" as a parallel; Malvolio and his closing remark "I'll be revenged upon the pack of you". Shakespeare assumes that his audience (especially the groundlings) would know a lot about Puritan religious doctrine, since he ridicules it in such detail in the play. And that Puritans were especially pissed off with the irreverent treatment they got in theatres.
Twenty years later, Malvolio's buddies were heading for New England on the Mayflower � with one of their aims being to create a society where smart asses like Shakespeare wouldn't have a voice.
In other words, hand-in-hand with the US aspiration towards freedom is the US aspiration towards total ideological control. It was a very common phenomenon in the Soviet Union, of course, but I reckon that Europe has learned (via very painful lessons called things like the Thirty Years War) to tolerate at least the expression of other opinions. This also happens to be an important element of what's called 'western scientific method'.
Let's just hope that the Americans manage to win their country back from the modern-day Malvolios � |
I also noticed you did not address the "Lone Nut Theory".
Yes continue to side step.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
Wikipedia is a sham for people who don't want to do their own research.
People like Wikipedophilias, who view the world as liberal or conservative, right wing and left wing, don't realize that we live in a new world that can't be so classified, and that information is neutral, either correct or incorrect, right or wrong.
It's a shame however, that some legitimate sites link to sites like McAdams, Meyers, Reitzes, Raham and company, as if they are reliable.
Wikipedia is also part of Operation Mockingbird. The continuing operation to cover up the Assassination:
Now is good time to use the "Twelfth Night" as a parallel; Malvolio and his closing remark "I'll be revenged upon the pack of you". Shakespeare assumes that his audience (especially the groundlings) would know a lot about Puritan religious doctrine, since he ridicules it in such detail in the play. And that Puritans were especially pissed off with the irreverent treatment they got in theatres.
Twenty years later, Malvolio's buddies were heading for New England on the Mayflower � with one of their aims being to create a society where smart asses like Shakespeare wouldn't have a voice.
In other words, hand-in-hand with the US aspiration towards freedom is the US aspiration towards total ideological control. It was a very common phenomenon in the Soviet Union, of course, but I reckon that Europe has learned (via very painful lessons called things like the Thirty Years War) to tolerate at least the expression of other opinions. This also happens to be an important element of what's called 'western scientific method'.
Let's just hope that the Americans manage to win their country back from the modern-day Malvolios � |
For the Wikiphobes
Gerald Ford proved the lone nut theory twice.
SEE lone nut #1:
http://www.squeakyfromme.org/media/abramson.htm
SEE lone nut #2:
http://www.geocities.com/proprioter/y_moore.html
For more on lone nuts see Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, Mark David Chapman and John Warnock Hinckley, Jr.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ford's rejection of this Bush administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq - not publically stated at the time, but disclosed by Bob Woodward after his death - shows that even at a very old age he was much more "presidential" in his perspective on America's role in the world than the current "decider" in the White House...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html
... In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| even at a very old age he was much more "presidential" in his perspective on America's role in the world than the current "decider" in the White House... |
This is very problematic. Cheyney and Bush are already on record saying nice things about him. This will seriously complicate the usual Republican attack strategy of smearing the character of anyone who disagrees with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
| Ford...lied to the American people... |
Regicide: I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion. What evidence did you examine, for example?
Please do not post conspiracy-theory links. Just talk about it -- this set of primary documents at this archive or library, for example. Or this former official's memoirs. Whatever.
If you have done the research that you claim you have, you ought to be able to summarize your research strategies and findings in a short synopsis. So again, then, please share with us how you know what you so confidently assert here. |
In his later years new documents emerged that suggested that Ford had played a vital role in the cover-up of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The original first draft of the Warren Commission Report stated that a bullet had entered Kennedy's "back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." Ford realized that this provided a serious problem for the single bullet theory. As Michael L. Kurtz has pointed out (The JFK Assassination Debates, 2006, page 85): "If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back."
Official Government Report
From the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)
In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory
Last edited by regicide on Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:40 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
Wikipedia is a sham for people who don't want to do their own research.
People like Wikipedophilias, who view the world as liberal or conservative, right wing and left wing, don't realize that we live in a new world that can't be so classified, and that information is neutral, either correct or incorrect, right or wrong.
It's a shame however, that some legitimate sites link to sites like McAdams, Meyers, Reitzes, Raham and company, as if they are reliable.
Wikipedia is also part of Operation Mockingbird. The continuing operation to cover up the Assassination:
Now is good time to use the "Twelfth Night" as a parallel; Malvolio and his closing remark "I'll be revenged upon the pack of you". Shakespeare assumes that his audience (especially the groundlings) would know a lot about Puritan religious doctrine, since he ridicules it in such detail in the play. And that Puritans were especially pissed off with the irreverent treatment they got in theatres.
Twenty years later, Malvolio's buddies were heading for New England on the Mayflower � with one of their aims being to create a society where smart asses like Shakespeare wouldn't have a voice.
In other words, hand-in-hand with the US aspiration towards freedom is the US aspiration towards total ideological control. It was a very common phenomenon in the Soviet Union, of course, but I reckon that Europe has learned (via very painful lessons called things like the Thirty Years War) to tolerate at least the expression of other opinions. This also happens to be an important element of what's called 'western scientific method'.
Let's just hope that the Americans manage to win their country back from the modern-day Malvolios � |
I also noticed you did not address the "Lone Nut Theory".
Yes continue to side step.
cbc |
Sorry, but I do not engage in discussions with "Lone Nutters"
In Gopher's case, he is just a know-it-all.
Last edited by regicide on Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| How anyone, [in] 2006, would need to start a[t] this point in the case is beyond me... |
Of course it is. I read your response. Still find you full of shit. Trapped in Oliver Stone's JFK. And now you are slandering an honorable man based on little more than your misreading an eight-year-old report you dishonestly claim as your own research.
And I did not ask you to discuss your pet bullet theory, vaguely reference "new documents," or cite an eight-year-old commission report that any fifth-grader could Google. I asked you to summarize, in direct, straightforward language, your sources and where exactly you have done your alleged time-consuming and expensive "research." I am not satisfied that you have done anything more than review a couple of conspiracy theories, probably via the internet and youtube, like Igotthisguitar and others here.
Never been in an archive in your entire life, I wager. The report you cite references four million pages of dox in the Natl Archives -- Record Group 541, I believe. Been there? If so, why can you not simply cite specific folders and dox?
Also, I will repeat what Ya-ta said elswhere: just because you can say whatever you wish on the internet does not authorize you to do what you attempt to do here. But I imagine that intellectual honesty is about as foreign to you as it is to Stone...and just like him you are simply unable to get over your own cynicism and suspicions.
Finally, commission members "draft" and "edit" the papers they produce, including interim and final reports. And this is a very far cry from "altering," Regicide. Interesting choice of words, however. Nicely illuminates your worldview.
| regicide wrote: |
| In Gopher[']s case, he is just a know[-]it[-]all. |
I do not know if I am a know-it-all, Regicide. I think I probably know more than you, however.
In any case, what are you, then? If not a know-it-all or "a lone nutter?" Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
Sorry, but I do not engage in discussions with "Lone Nutters"
In Gophers case, he is just a know it all. |
So admiting Squeaky and Sarah were "lone nuts"?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| In Gopher[']s case, he is just a know[-]it[-]all. |
I do not know if I am a know-it-all, Regicide. I think I probably know more than you, however.
In any case, what are you, then? If not a know-it-all or "a lone nutter?" Just curious.[/quote]
You think I use the movie JFK or YOUTUBE as my sources?
For those of you are reading Gopher's nonsense, I cited a government report form the Assassinatons Records Review Board (ARRB). Contact the Federal Government of the United States if you have a complaint about what I said.
Gopher, is acting like a CIA asset in Operation Mockingbird, the government program to keep this thing under raps. He is mocking me as I use a government report as my evidence, and Gopher diverts attention by saying I am using a movie or a send in your own video service as my resources. This a the usual MOA for disinformation agents.
And , as far as looking into government archives and getting information from the same government that killed JFK? That would be a great move!
All the information that I rely on is from primary sources alright, from eyewitnesses.
Gopher, you are cognitively impaired if you know anything about this case and still believe in the party line.
Or you are just an American Sheeple.
You do not deserve to be called a CIA asset.
Your MOA is to appear "smart" , citing research venues which actually prove my case, while at the same time, knowing nothing about the subject.
If you were a true American Patriot, you would believe in the truth.
You however, are acting like a Nazi.
Last edited by regicide on Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:44 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
bondrock:
How very dismissive (or is it irreverant?) and willfully ignorant of you to say so. Ford was a star athlete on a top football team, a man who attended Yale University Law School on scholarship, a war veteran, and a dear friend of liberal leaders like Jimmy Carter and conservative ones like George Bush senior alike. Even Bob Woodward acknowledged his pardon of Nixon was far-sighted. He brought a country together at it's most trying moment, something only an American from that era could possibly appreciate, apparently.
Ford was honest, straightforward, unpretentious, and moderate. We could use his likes again, especially in this divisive political climate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
