Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP [View all]William Seger
(11,149 posts)57. Baloney. Here's a link to the minutes of that meeting
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10391&relPageId=2
The version of the meeting that you are peddling is based solely on conspiracists glomming onto one sentence in the following paragraph and taking it completely out of context:
Quenching rumors, arguille, not suppressing facts, and the proof that that's what he meant is the immediately following sentence, which conspiracists prefer to ignore. Warren apparently was of the same opinion as me that bullshit never did anyone any good, and in the previous paragraph, Warren gave one pragmatic example of why "quenching rumors" was important: One set of conspiracy theories blamed foreign governments of the conspiracy, which had the potential of leading to a war.
The version of the meeting that you are peddling is based solely on conspiracists glomming onto one sentence in the following paragraph and taking it completely out of context:
The Chief Justice then explained the role of the committee. He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission needed to determine the truth, whatever that might be.
Quenching rumors, arguille, not suppressing facts, and the proof that that's what he meant is the immediately following sentence, which conspiracists prefer to ignore. Warren apparently was of the same opinion as me that bullshit never did anyone any good, and in the previous paragraph, Warren gave one pragmatic example of why "quenching rumors" was important: One set of conspiracy theories blamed foreign governments of the conspiracy, which had the potential of leading to a war.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
168 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thanks for posting, I watched the first 9 videos from the links in your earlier posts.
eomer
Feb 2013
#1
Episode Three: Bill Simpich speculates that Oswald was part of "false defector" program
William Seger
Feb 2013
#13
Episode Five: John Armstrong again, speculating about "two Oswalds" again
William Seger
Feb 2013
#16
On posting the videos as they come out each week, and on your being blocked for it...
eomer
Feb 2013
#7
I followed the discussion and I thank you for having, by far, the more reasonable approach.
NYC_SKP
Feb 2013
#14
It would appear that the poll speaks for who's more interested in the videos...
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2013
#19
Clicking on your posts, hoping that maybe this time there will be something
William Seger
Apr 2013
#86
"...but the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts."
MrMickeysMom
Apr 2013
#87
c) Seger dismisses information on Oswald's history and background as unsubstantial
William Seger
Mar 2013
#30
The minutes of the first Commission meeting, and I provided the link (n/t)
William Seger
Apr 2013
#81
Baloney. It's not a "rhetorical device" to demand FACT-based DEDUCTIVE reasoning
William Seger
Mar 2013
#56
I have only watched the first first video and half of the second, so they might address that point.
ZombieHorde
Apr 2013
#103
Well, I suppose the earth being round remains a point of contention since some believe it is flat...
zappaman
Apr 2013
#111
In other words, Fiester has NO CLUE the 2.5" forward head-snap even happened
William Seger
Apr 2013
#123
What's refuted is your bizarre interpretation of "contemporary ballistic science"
William Seger
Apr 2013
#143
I really don't understand why you keep responding if that's the best you can do
William Seger
Apr 2013
#155