|
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 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Regicide has been beating a horse that has been dead for, oh, nigh on 45 years. |
So you believe in the single beater theory? You're disturbed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This place is seriously sucking ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that many of the above JFK threads could and should have been merged or included in one thread. But, this is an RFK thread. The Robert Kennedy assassination deserves its own thread. It should be free from JFK material. It should be free from protests about its existence. Posters who object should just skip by threads that they find annoying by their very existence. They should not muck up the thread by posting comments on the thread opposing the thread's existence. They should start a new thread to protest the offending thread.
This thread has been spammed by the "anti" free speech faction.
I have nothing to add to the RFK topic, but I was hoping to read some interesting "new" information. This assassination was never adequately investigated or examined. Evidence was deliberately destroyed years ago. It is sad that the real Dave's spammers have ruined a good thread.
I may open a new RFK thread. A final thread. A thread for the information, new, old, rehashed, bogus or BS, whatever, to be presented, discussed and read by those who are interested. I want to read it. I may not believe it, but an airing doesn't hurt.
Spammers please stay away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good points: Try not mucking up the thread with your objections. Pay attention- - this started out as RFK , not JFK - - spamming your objections about spamming also makes no sense.
Good characterization- - "Anti - Free Speech " folks, stop spamming! (about spamming)
| ontheway wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| What have these anti-free speech nazis here at Dave's got to be afraid of? Do they have to control every inch of the forum? Do alternative views so torment their little souls that they can't sleep at night? |
I agree that many of the above JFK threads could and should have been merged or included in one thread. But, this is an RFK thread. The Robert Kennedy assassination deserves its own thread. It should be free from JFK material. It should be free from protests about its existence. Posters who object should just skip by threads that they find annoying by their very existence. They should not muck up the thread by posting comments on the thread opposing the thread's existence. They should start a new thread to protest the offending thread.
This thread has been spammed by the "anti" free speech faction.
I have nothing to add to the RFK topic, but I was hoping to read some interesting "new" information. This assassination was never adequately investigated or examined. Evidence was deliberately destroyed years ago. It is sad that the real Dave's spammers have ruined a good thread.
I may open a new RFK thread. A final thread. A thread for the information, new, old, rehashed, bogus or BS, whatever, to be presented, discussed and read by those who are interested. I want to read it. I may not believe it, but an airing doesn't hurt.
Spammers please stay away. |
I tried to get it back on track:
| Rteacher wrote: |
It seems to be more a question of aesthetics - like too many billboards on the highway ...
But these are more public service-type messages - not commercial (like real spam is.)
Neither "igotthisuitar's" nor "regicide's" threads/posts have ever bothered me - and sometimes I'm in the mood to carefully read them ...
Arbitrarily restricting the daily number of posts seems like over-regulation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The guy who did the autopsy said RFK was shot from at most 3 inches away. All witnesses put Sirhan Sirhan at 2-5 feet.
I cannot prove that these witnesses were not drunk or not knee-jerk hate America firsters. I cannot prove that they are NOT cybernetic organisms created by supporters of Eugene McCarthy. Therefore, the evidence I have cited is not reliable.
Is that about right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kennedy was killed by a shot at close range to the back of the head as you say and Sirhan was not only several feet away, but he was in front of Kennedy.
Forty years after Democratic rising star Robert F. Kennedy was killed at a Los Angeles hotel during his presidential run, new evidence suggests the man serving a life sentence for his murder did not fire the shots that killed the charismatic senator.
Forensic scientists met at a conference in Connecticut this week to discuss their independent findings that cast serious doubt on the Kennedy assassination. Sirhan Sirhan is serving a life sentence in Kennedy's death, but the conference presenters argue he could not have fired the fatal shot that killed Kennedy.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12554
Last edited by regicide on Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a perfectly simple question.
See, the act of starting a thread is essentially an invitation to all the members of a forum to participate in a discussion. This is, after all, a discussion forum. It's not somebody's blog.
Anyone who visits this forum is free to respond to any thread. There ARE some individuals who can't respond, only because they have not bothered to register and agree to the TOS.
It has been suggested that some members of this forum start threads not because they want to initiate a real discussion, or not because they want to considerately and seriously take into account viewpoints that differ from their own. Instead, they do so because they simply want to assert their viewpoints on everybody, as often as possible.
| In a previous post, I wrote: |
If regicide is really interested in other people's opinions, and in asking other people to offer their viewpoint, then he should at least have the consideration of keeping the topic organized into one thread. So why doesn't he do this?
The simple answer is that spamming the forum in this manner indicates he is not interested in having people consider, discuss, or offer opinions on his theories at all. He's only interested in shoving them down other people's throats as often as possible. |
Gopher and others have expressed a similar opinion. And YES, a number of members of this forum find it objectionable to spam it with multiple threads on the same topic.
But in any case, I am perfectly willing to admit that my quote above may be wrong.
So, to come back to the question, CAN you demonstrate that I am wrong?
Can you demonstrate that you ARE seriously interested in considering other people's viewpoints? Other than those of people who already agree with you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because it's not at all apparent that you are:
| regicide wrote: |
| I think you and Gopher are the same person; or at least equally disturbed. |
| regicide wrote: |
| Absolute nonsense - - double talk. Your posts have no merit - - you are ignored. |
I and anybody else on this forum, I'm sure, would be perfectly happy to participate in a discussion about the RFK assassination...if it is apparent that our viewpoints will be considered seriously.
After all, if you're not interested in seriously and courteously considering the viewpoints of others, then why are you even starting the threads? That's what this place - this discussion forum - is all about.
Right?
Last edited by Manner of Speaking on Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
never mind
Last edited by jkelly80 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
I agree that many of the above JFK threads could and should have been merged or included in one thread. But, this is an RFK thread. The Robert Kennedy assassination deserves its own thread. It should be free from JFK material. It should be free from protests about its existence. Posters who object should just skip by threads that they find annoying by their very existence. They should not muck up the thread by posting comments on the thread opposing the thread's existence. They should start a new thread to protest the offending thread.
This thread has been spammed by the "anti" free speech faction.
I have nothing to add to the RFK topic, but I was hoping to read some interesting "new" information. This assassination was never adequately investigated or examined. Evidence was deliberately destroyed years ago. It is sad that the real Dave's spammers have ruined a good thread.
I may open a new RFK thread. A final thread. A thread for the information, new, old, rehashed, bogus or BS, whatever, to be presented, discussed and read by those who are interested. I want to read it. I may not believe it, but an airing doesn't hurt.
Spammers please stay away. |
Fair enough. My comment was in specific response to your comment that objecting to multiple threads = restricting free speech. That's not my intention at all...this is a public discussion forum, and anyone is free to start a new thread on any new topic, or to participate in a discussion on a particular topic. I and others feel that repeatedly reposting the same topic in multiple threads detracts from free speech, because a) responses to the thread are ignored by the person who started the thread, and b) repeating the same OPINION over and over again can be reasonably interpreted as an attempt to shove one viewpoint down everybody's throats. A form of ideological spamming/advertising. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lets work together on this.
Last edited by regicide on Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:50 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| while witnesses place the shooter in another position |
Are there not witnesses who place him at the correct spot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, that everything we know about memory says that witness statements are not to be relied upon. I personally think that police everywhere rely way too much on eye witness statements.
To be honest though, I don't know too much about RFK or his death. If the autopsy doctor says he got shot from close up, and the guy was 5 feet or more away then that does seem odd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
You know, that everything we know about memory says that witness statements are not to be "relied" upon.
I personally think that police everywhere rely way too much on eye witness statements.
To be honest though, I don't know too much about RFK or his death.
If the autopsy doctor says he got shot from close up, and the guy was 5 feet or more away then that does seem odd. |
Eye-witness testimony is useful mostly when helping to support a PRE-DETERMINED outcome 
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/12/05/sirhan-sirhans-attor.html
LAWRENCE TEETER (RIP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Teeter
Attorney for Sirhan Sirhan, convicted of the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=8965 ( AUDIO INTERVIEW ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
You know, that everything we know about memory says that witness statements are not to be "relied" upon.
I personally think that police everywhere rely way too much on eye witness statements.
To be honest though, I don't know too much about RFK or his death.
If the autopsy doctor says he got shot from close up, and the guy was 5 feet or more away then that does seem odd. |
Eye-witness testimony is useful mostly when helping to support a PRE-DETERMINED outcome
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/12/05/sirhan-sirhans-attor.html
LAWRENCE TEETER (RIP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Teeter
Attorney for Sirhan Sirhan, convicted of the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=8965 ( AUDIO INTERVIEW ) |
i believe eye witness/witness testimony is dodgy in any case. Obviously in some cases it is more viable than others. People are just not good at remembering.
The RFK shooting could be one of those incidences where it is more viable, I haven't really looked into it. |
|
| 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
