Discussion:
Pamela's "Acknowledge My Position" Nonsense
Add Reply
John McAdams
2017-06-09 03:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.

But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."

She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.

Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."

She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."

Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!

She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
2017-06-10 01:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you
realize that your entire post is ad hominem?

What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What
matters are the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you
make no mention of Brown's specific arguments. You just rant
about her, personally.

The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present
your counter arguments. That at least, might make your
article interesting.

When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks
become questionable, since you have a long record of
misrepresenting people who disagree with you.

You have for example, accused me of making statements only
because I *need* them to fit some theory, right after
snipping all the evidence I presented, which prove that I am
correct:-)


Robert Harris
John McAdams
2017-06-10 01:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you
realize that your entire post is ad hominem?
When Pamela whines that I failed to "acknowledge her position," I have
every right to explain what she means by that.
Post by Robert Harris
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What
matters are the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you
make no mention of Brown's specific arguments. You just rant
about her, personally.
That's because what she "personally" did was try to shut up discussion
of Judyth until *she* thought it was acceptable.
Post by Robert Harris
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present
your counter arguments. That at least, might make your
article interesting.
Judyth is old stuff.
Post by Robert Harris
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks
become questionable, since you have a long record of
misrepresenting people who disagree with you.
Nonsense.
Post by Robert Harris
You have for example, accused me of making statements only
because I *need* them to fit some theory, right after
snipping all the evidence I presented, which prove that I am
correct:-)
You have done exactly that. Since you *need* Clint Hill not to have
heard a particular shot, you, with no evidence, say he was deafened by
the 313 shot.

Since you *need* three shots after John Conally was hit, you claim he
somehow just didn't hear two of them.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 18:02:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you
realize that your entire post is ad hominem?
When Pamela whines that I failed to "acknowledge her position," I have
every right to explain what she means by that.
No, you use any opportunity to attack her personally. Some people here are
smart enough to know what she means. Maybe you have to translate for your
fellow WC defenders.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What
matters are the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you
make no mention of Brown's specific arguments. You just rant
about her, personally.
That's because what she "personally" did was try to shut up discussion
of Judyth until *she* thought it was acceptable.
No, she had no power to shut up discussion. That's what YOU do.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present
your counter arguments. That at least, might make your
article interesting.
Judyth is old stuff.
So why do you keep bringing it up?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks
become questionable, since you have a long record of
misrepresenting people who disagree with you.
Nonsense.
Post by Robert Harris
You have for example, accused me of making statements only
because I *need* them to fit some theory, right after
snipping all the evidence I presented, which prove that I am
correct:-)
You have done exactly that. Since you *need* Clint Hill not to have
heard a particular shot, you, with no evidence, say he was deafened by
the 313 shot.
How can you claim that with any certainty when he has been so vague and
keeps changing his theory. It's like trying to nail down jello.
Post by John McAdams
Since you *need* three shots after John Conally was hit, you claim he
somehow just didn't hear two of them.
He just won't tell us why he needs them. Does it need misses or hits?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-14 21:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you
realize that your entire post is ad hominem?
When Pamela whines that I failed to "acknowledge her position," I have
every right to explain what she means by that.
No, you use any opportunity to attack her personally. Some people here are
smart enough to know what she means. Maybe you have to translate for your
fellow WC defenders.
Thank you, Anthony. In 2003 I still naively clung to the hope that anyone
who had worked or was working as a prof would have a basic understanding
of the rules of debate. I could not have been more mistaken! My asking
for an open forum was treated as though it were an act of treason!


BTW, McAdams behavior is reminiscent of one BU prof who tried to fail me
because my papers were too brilliant. "Nobody could be that smart!" he
said. That was unprofessional too.

Pamela
John McAdams
2017-06-14 21:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you
realize that your entire post is ad hominem?
When Pamela whines that I failed to "acknowledge her position," I have
every right to explain what she means by that.
No, you use any opportunity to attack her personally. Some people here are
smart enough to know what she means. Maybe you have to translate for your
fellow WC defenders.
Thank you, Anthony. In 2003 I still naively clung to the hope that anyone
who had worked or was working as a prof would have a basic understanding
of the rules of debate. I could not have been more mistaken! My asking
for an open forum was treated as though it were an act of treason!
Pamela's "rules of debate" were that nobody was allowed to criticize
Judyth's account until Pamela said it was OK.

Her idea of "debate" is shutting other people up.
Post by j***@gmail.com
BTW, McAdams behavior is reminiscent of one BU prof who tried to fail me
because my papers were too brilliant. "Nobody could be that smart!" he
said. That was unprofessional too.
Do you actually expect anybody to believe that?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bpete1969
2017-06-15 17:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
BTW, McAdams behavior is reminiscent of one BU prof who tried to fail me
because my papers were too brilliant. "Nobody could be that smart!" he
said. That was unprofessional too.
Pamela
Are you channeling Judyth Now?
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 13:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
BTW, McAdams behavior is reminiscent of one BU prof who tried to fail me
because my papers were too brilliant. "Nobody could be that smart!" he
said. That was unprofessional too.
Pamela
Are you channeling Judyth Now?
You're missing the point, which is that, based on my experience, there
unfortunatly are profs in a position of responsibility who may have a
hidden agenda.
bpete1969
2017-06-17 23:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
BTW, McAdams behavior is reminiscent of one BU prof who tried to fail me
because my papers were too brilliant. "Nobody could be that smart!" he
said. That was unprofessional too.
Pamela
Are you channeling Judyth Now?
You're missing the point, which is that, based on my experience, there
unfortunatly are profs in a position of responsibility who may have a
hidden agenda.
That too of "researchers", "historians" and "brilliant" people.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 00:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
BTW, McAdams behavior is reminiscent of one BU prof who tried to fail me
because my papers were too brilliant. "Nobody could be that smart!" he
said. That was unprofessional too.
Pamela
Are you channeling Judyth Now?
You're missing the point, which is that, based on my experience, there
unfortunatly are profs in a position of responsibility who may have a
hidden agenda.
There are some professors who are not there to teach, only to push an
extreme rightwing ideology.
Remeber Silber?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 18:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks become
questionable, since you have a long record of misrepresenting people who
disagree with you.
You have for example, accused me of making statements only because I
*need* them to fit some theory, right after snipping all the evidence I
presented, which prove that I am correct:-)
You don't present evidence. Only opinion. You are entitled to your
opinion.
Robert Harris
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-11 17:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Post by Anthony Marsh
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks become
questionable, since you have a long record of misrepresenting people who
disagree with you.
You have for example, accused me of making statements only because I
*need* them to fit some theory, right after snipping all the evidence I
presented, which prove that I am correct:-)
You don't present evidence. Only opinion. You are entitled to your
opinion.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
2017-06-11 21:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Anybody can see you are the one who refused to debate.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-21 02:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Anybody can see you are the one who refused to debate.
Anyone with discernment can tell when someone is making a false
representation and attempting to apply it to their opponent. They may also
discern that only one considered to be a threat would be worth the bother.
John McAdams
2017-06-21 03:06:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Anybody can see you are the one who refused to debate.
Anyone with discernment can tell when someone is making a false
representation and attempting to apply it to their opponent. They may also
discern that only one considered to be a threat would be worth the bother.
Of course, nothing like that happened, since Pamela did not debate.

Without spending all night digging up her old posts, here is how Barb
described Pamela's actions:

<Quote on>

You have NOT been sitting on any sidelines. ROTFL. You have refused to
engage in reasoned discussion on the evidence of her case and any
findings, but you have been right smack in the middle of the playing
field attcking the characters and research of those who have bothered
to discuss and research her claims, always chiding, misrepresenting
and scolding researchers who dared to research your *friend* .... one
that you even gave money to, which is not in keeping with the farcical
"sidelines" either.

Hope your "process" involves some actual evidence. We've had 10 years
of your musings.

<end quote>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KaidGz3oNLw/6_rfwMuHOPwJ

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-22 00:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Anybody can see you are the one who refused to debate.
Anyone with discernment can tell when someone is making a false
representation and attempting to apply it to their opponent. They may also
discern that only one considered to be a threat would be worth the bother.
Of course, nothing like that happened, since Pamela did not debate.
Without spending all night digging up her old posts, here is how Barb
<Quote on>
You have NOT been sitting on any sidelines. ROTFL. You have refused to
engage in reasoned discussion on the evidence of her case and any
findings, but you have been right smack in the middle of the playing
field attcking the characters and research of those who have bothered
to discuss and research her claims, always chiding, misrepresenting
and scolding researchers who dared to research your *friend* .... one
that you even gave money to, which is not in keeping with the farcical
"sidelines" either.
Slander is fun, isn't it? Did Pamela ever say Judyth was her "friend"?
Did you ever get any money from your *friend* Donald J. Trump?
Post by John McAdams
Hope your "process" involves some actual evidence. We've had 10 years
of your musings.
<end quote>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KaidGz3oNLw/6_rfwMuHOPwJ
Wow, so one of your minions attacks a conspiracy believer? And you call
that NEWS?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-22 23:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Anybody can see you are the one who refused to debate.
Anyone with discernment can tell when someone is making a false
representation and attempting to apply it to their opponent. They may also
discern that only one considered to be a threat would be worth the bother.
Of course, nothing like that happened, since Pamela did not debate.
Without spending all night digging up her old posts, here is how Barb
<Quote on>
You have NOT been sitting on any sidelines. ROTFL. You have refused to
engage in reasoned discussion on the evidence of her case and any
findings, but you have been right smack in the middle of the playing
field attcking the characters and research of those who have bothered
to discuss and research her claims, always chiding, misrepresenting
and scolding researchers who dared to research your *friend* .... one
that you even gave money to, which is not in keeping with the farcical
"sidelines" either.
Slander is fun, isn't it? Did Pamela ever say Judyth was her "friend"?
Did you ever get any money from your *friend* Donald J. Trump?
McAdams claims I am not a threat, yet creates a false persona that has
nothing to do with what I say or do and tries to make it stick.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Hope your "process" involves some actual evidence. We've had 10 years
of your musings.
<end quote>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KaidGz3oNLw/6_rfwMuHOPwJ
Wow, so one of your minions attacks a conspiracy believer? And you call
that NEWS?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2017-06-23 00:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Anybody can see you are the one who refused to debate.
Anyone with discernment can tell when someone is making a false
representation and attempting to apply it to their opponent. They may also
discern that only one considered to be a threat would be worth the bother.
Of course, nothing like that happened, since Pamela did not debate.
Without spending all night digging up her old posts, here is how Barb
<Quote on>
You have NOT been sitting on any sidelines. ROTFL. You have refused to
engage in reasoned discussion on the evidence of her case and any
findings, but you have been right smack in the middle of the playing
field attcking the characters and research of those who have bothered
to discuss and research her claims, always chiding, misrepresenting
and scolding researchers who dared to research your *friend* .... one
that you even gave money to, which is not in keeping with the farcical
"sidelines" either.
Slander is fun, isn't it?
You and Pamela use similar approaches, when someone calls into question
your poor thinking (or "processes") you play the victim card. Claim to be
bullied or that the field is slanted, anything to draw attention away from
the fact that your ideas suck.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did Pamela ever say Judyth was her "friend"?
Did you ever get any money from your *friend* Donald J. Trump?
Post by John McAdams
Hope your "process" involves some actual evidence. We've had 10 years
of your musings.
<end quote>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KaidGz3oNLw/6_rfwMuHOPwJ
Wow, so one of your minions attacks a conspiracy believer? And you call
that NEWS?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
s***@yahoo.com
2017-06-11 23:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Post by Anthony Marsh
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks become
questionable, since you have a long record of misrepresenting people who
disagree with you.
You have for example, accused me of making statements only because I
*need* them to fit some theory, right after snipping all the evidence I
presented, which prove that I am correct:-)
You don't present evidence. Only opinion. You are entitled to your
opinion.
Robert Harris
Doesn't permit debate? Where is your evidence for this? McAdams lets
people post whatever conspiracy ideas anyone believes. Ralph Cinque
anyone?

He's never stopped two or more people from debating any of this.

Go ahead. Ask someone here to debate you on your theory that Baker was
created to divert attention away from Marina's belief that her husband
didn't kill JFK.

It seems that your idea of "debate" is to let you say whatever you want
without being challenged. That's not a debate.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-12 16:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Post by Anthony Marsh
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks become
questionable, since you have a long record of misrepresenting people who
disagree with you.
You have for example, accused me of making statements only because I
*need* them to fit some theory, right after snipping all the evidence I
presented, which prove that I am correct:-)
You don't present evidence. Only opinion. You are entitled to your
opinion.
Robert Harris
Doesn't permit debate? Where is your evidence for this? McAdams lets
people post whatever conspiracy ideas anyone believes. Ralph Cinque
anyone?
He's never stopped two or more people from debating any of this.
He refuses to debate. He erases messages which prove the other person's
points.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Go ahead. Ask someone here to debate you on your theory that Baker was
created to divert attention away from Marina's belief that her husband
didn't kill JFK.
WC defenders don't debate. They slander.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
It seems that your idea of "debate" is to let you say whatever you want
without being challenged. That's not a debate.
He doesn't let us say whatever we want.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-12 23:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you realize
that your entire post is ad hominem?
That's what his job is, to break your rules.
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What matters are
the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you make no mention of
Brown's specific arguments. You just rant about her, personally.
Issues? .John doesn't do issues.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present your
counter arguments. That at least, might make your article interesting.
Are you crazy? That would be almost like a debate! He won't tolerate that.
What? Has that been the problem all along? McAdams just won't allow
debate? Who knew...
Post by Anthony Marsh
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks become
questionable, since you have a long record of misrepresenting people who
disagree with you.
You have for example, accused me of making statements only because I
*need* them to fit some theory, right after snipping all the evidence I
presented, which prove that I am correct:-)
You don't present evidence. Only opinion. You are entitled to your
opinion.
Robert Harris
Doesn't permit debate? Where is your evidence for this? McAdams lets
people post whatever conspiracy ideas anyone believes. Ralph Cinque
anyone?
He's never stopped two or more people from debating any of this.
Go ahead. Ask someone here to debate you on your theory that Baker was
created to divert attention away from Marina's belief that her husband
didn't kill JFK.
It seems that your idea of "debate" is to let you say whatever you want
without being challenged. That's not a debate.
Gosh, why don't we ask Martin Shackleford what he thinks? Hey, Martin !!!
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-11 17:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Judyth, but do you
realize that your entire post is ad hominem?
What matters is not your opinion of your adversaries. What
matters are the issues related to the JFK case. And yet, you
make no mention of Brown's specific arguments. You just rant
about her, personally.
The least you could do is cite her verbatim and then present
your counter arguments. That at least, might make your
article interesting.
When you are ambiguous, the truthfulness of your attacks
become questionable, since you have a long record of
misrepresenting people who disagree with you.
You have for example, accused me of making statements only
because I *need* them to fit some theory, right after
snipping all the evidence I presented, which prove that I am
correct:-)
Robert Harris
Thank you, Robert. Fair enough. That is all I have asked.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-10 03:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Poor McAdams, who spent a couple of generations as a prof is still going
around in circles on the art of debate. One might think he would be this
time have at least absorbed a bit of intellectual curiosity from his
peers, but that does not yet appear to be the case.

Rather than taking a step out of a box of what appears to be a determined
preference to remain uninformed, he blames the messenger.

Tacky, imo. Very tacky.

Here is a link to a very simple explanation of debate. It might be
something that even McAdams might find interesting...or not...

http://www.wikihow.com/Debate

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogsp[ot.com
John McAdams
2017-06-10 03:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Poor McAdams, who spent a couple of generations as a prof is still going
around in circles on the art of debate. One might think he would be this
time have at least absorbed a bit of intellectual curiosity from his
peers, but that does not yet appear to be the case.
Rather than taking a step out of a box of what appears to be a determined
preference to remain uninformed, he blames the messenger.
Tacky, imo. Very tacky.
Here is a link to a very simple explanation of debate. It might be
something that even McAdams might find interesting...or not...
Irony alert!

This is Pamela, who doesn't debate. She just bitches and moans, and
scolds people when they don't agree with her.

"[P]reference to remain uninformed?" She was defending Judyth!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 18:12:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Poor McAdams, who spent a couple of generations as a prof is still going
around in circles on the art of debate. One might think he would be this
time have at least absorbed a bit of intellectual curiosity from his
peers, but that does not yet appear to be the case.
Rather than taking a step out of a box of what appears to be a determined
preference to remain uninformed, he blames the messenger.
Tacky, imo. Very tacky.
Here is a link to a very simple explanation of debate. It might be
something that even McAdams might find interesting...or not...
Irony alert!
This is Pamela, who doesn't debate. She just bitches and moans, and
"Bitches"? And you think the board wouldn't call that sexist?
Post by John McAdams
scolds people when they don't agree with her.
Hell, she FLAMMED me before she realized that I was right. I still love
her anyway.
Post by John McAdams
"[P]reference to remain uninformed?" She was defending Judyth!
Her right to speak. Did you resign from the ACLU because they defended
the Nazis at Skokie?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-06-10 18:14:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10 Jun 2017 14:12:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Poor McAdams, who spent a couple of generations as a prof is still going
around in circles on the art of debate. One might think he would be this
time have at least absorbed a bit of intellectual curiosity from his
peers, but that does not yet appear to be the case.
Rather than taking a step out of a box of what appears to be a determined
preference to remain uninformed, he blames the messenger.
Tacky, imo. Very tacky.
Here is a link to a very simple explanation of debate. It might be
something that even McAdams might find interesting...or not...
Irony alert!
This is Pamela, who doesn't debate. She just bitches and moans, and
"Bitches"? And you think the board wouldn't call that sexist?
Check "to bitch" as an intransitive verb, Tony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
scolds people when they don't agree with her.
Hell, she FLAMMED me before she realized that I was right. I still love
her anyway.
Post by John McAdams
"[P]reference to remain uninformed?" She was defending Judyth!
Her right to speak. Did you resign from the ACLU because they defended
the Nazis at Skokie?
I've never been a member of the ACLU. But if they limited themselves
to free speech (and not a general liberal agenda) I would be.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-11 18:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 10 Jun 2017 14:12:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Poor McAdams, who spent a couple of generations as a prof is still going
around in circles on the art of debate. One might think he would be this
time have at least absorbed a bit of intellectual curiosity from his
peers, but that does not yet appear to be the case.
Rather than taking a step out of a box of what appears to be a determined
preference to remain uninformed, he blames the messenger.
Tacky, imo. Very tacky.
Here is a link to a very simple explanation of debate. It might be
something that even McAdams might find interesting...or not...
Irony alert!
This is Pamela, who doesn't debate. She just bitches and moans, and
"Bitches"? And you think the board wouldn't call that sexist?
Check "to bitch" as an intransitive verb, Tony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
scolds people when they don't agree with her.
Hell, she FLAMMED me before she realized that I was right. I still love
her anyway.
Post by John McAdams
"[P]reference to remain uninformed?" She was defending Judyth!
Her right to speak. Did you resign from the ACLU because they defended
the Nazis at Skokie?
I've never been a member of the ACLU. But if they limited themselves
to free speech (and not a general liberal agenda) I would be.
I was just trying to get you into trouble with CPAC.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 12:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bpete1969
2017-06-11 04:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"

After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-14 21:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
bpete1969
2017-06-15 16:48:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 13:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
bpete1969
2017-06-17 23:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
My reply was said in contempt.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-19 01:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
My reply was said in contempt.
Nice of you to spell that out for everyone.

Unfortunately, contempt is hardly conducive to healthy debate. In that
regard, I hope you won't mind if I add you to my 'ignore' list for now.

Pamela
bpete1969
2017-06-19 17:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
My reply was said in contempt.
Nice of you to spell that out for everyone.
Unfortunately, contempt is hardly conducive to healthy debate. In that
regard, I hope you won't mind if I add you to my 'ignore' list for now.
Pamela
Based on your comments since you reappeared a couple of weeks ago, you
have no concept of the meaning of healthy debate.

You spent countless hours trying to squelch healthy debate years ago and
completely overlooked the evidence that Judyth Very Faker is a fraud.

It was right there in the very pages you were posting on. Then you have
the audacity to come here and try to deny the very thing you did.

You're just another Judyth. Good riddance.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-19 17:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
My reply was said in contempt.
Nice of you to spell that out for everyone.
Unfortunately, contempt is hardly conducive to healthy debate. In that
regard, I hope you won't mind if I add you to my 'ignore' list for now.
Pamela
You might not have found Judyth after all, Ms. Brown. She's still hiding
behind the couch, along with Jesus.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-19 23:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark OBLAZNEY
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
My reply was said in contempt.
Nice of you to spell that out for everyone.
Unfortunately, contempt is hardly conducive to healthy debate. In that
regard, I hope you won't mind if I add you to my 'ignore' list for now.
Pamela
You might not have found Judyth after all, Ms. Brown. She's still hiding
behind the couch, along with Jesus.
Ha ha. I guess I have a way to go to win you over!



Pamela
bpete1969
2017-06-19 23:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark OBLAZNEY
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
You're so brilliant, you figure it out.
My reply was said in irony.
My reply was said in contempt.
Nice of you to spell that out for everyone.
Unfortunately, contempt is hardly conducive to healthy debate. In that
regard, I hope you won't mind if I add you to my 'ignore' list for now.
Pamela
You might not have found Judyth after all, Ms. Brown. She's still hiding
behind the couch, along with Jesus.
If she's still "finding Judyth" then it only proves she couldn't find her
butt with both hands and a mirror.

Judyth and her lack of credibility has been right there in front for 17+
years.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 17:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Marsh....so you found a letter. Big deal. have you done anything to debunk
her claims? No, you simply keep waiving that damned letter screaming "Look
at me Look at me"
After you're gone, I'll make damn sure to paste that fucking letter on
your headstone so all the world can see.
How are you allowed to use this sort of language on a moderated board?
Minion. My message was blocked when I said that McAdams was graduated
with honors.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-14 21:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.[...]
I used to wonder if McAdams considered Judyth some sort of threat, because
of the ongoing knee-jerk reaction to anything I said about her.

Now I wonder if the issue is a larger one -- that McAdams is threatened by
any discussion of NOLA in 1963. Steven Roy, who developed important
material on David Ferrie was never given a 'good publisher' for his
research. McAdams could have done that with one phone call.

Just my 2 cents...

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
John McAdams
2017-06-14 21:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.[...]
I used to wonder if McAdams considered Judyth some sort of threat, because
of the ongoing knee-jerk reaction to anything I said about her.
Now I wonder if the issue is a larger one -- that McAdams is threatened by
any discussion of NOLA in 1963. Steven Roy, who developed important
material on David Ferrie was never given a 'good publisher' for his
research. McAdams could have done that with one phone call.
You follow one crazy theory up with another crazy theory.

Blackburst and I agreed with essentially everything about New Orleans.

In fact, he was one of the people you hated since he was critical of
Judyth.

If you think I have the power to "with one phone call" tell any
publisher what to publish, you are crazy.

I did offer to help him find a publisher, but he never took me up on
it. He never finished a manuscript. That's tragic. He was the best
of all New Orleans researchers.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 17:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
When Judyth Baker began to be discussed on this newsgroup circa 2000,
a lot of people were skeptical of her claims, and said so.
But Pamela Brown would have none of that. She claimed she was engaged
in a "process" and nobody was supposed to criticize Judyth until she
completed her "process."
She scolded, bitched and whined when anybody did.
Pamela is still here, whining about how I refused to "acknowledge her
position."
She can't use honest language. By "acknowledge" she means "accept
what I have to say, and shut up about Judyth until I say you can
discuss her."
Like some snowflake on a college campus, she claims to have been
victimizes simply because people disagree with her!
She's back on the newsgroup, bitching and whining, and it's not going
to do her any good. She made a fool of herself by defending Judyth
when everybody else could see Judyth was a fraud.
Did YOU do anything to check out Juydth's claims? No.
Did YOU find her letter to JFK? NO.
All you know how to do is attack people.
CIA 101: Always attack the source.[...]
I used to wonder if McAdams considered Judyth some sort of threat, because
of the ongoing knee-jerk reaction to anything I said about her.
Now I wonder if the issue is a larger one -- that McAdams is threatened by
any discussion of NOLA in 1963. Steven Roy, who developed important
material on David Ferrie was never given a 'good publisher' for his
research. McAdams could have done that with one phone call.
You follow one crazy theory up with another crazy theory.
Blackburst and I agreed with essentially everything about New Orleans.
In fact, he was one of the people you hated since he was critical of
Judyth.
If you think I have the power to "with one phone call" tell any
publisher what to publish, you are crazy.
I did offer to help him find a publisher, but he never took me up on
it. He never finished a manuscript. That's tragic. He was the best
of all New Orleans researchers.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So, he knew Ferrie's little boy victims and chatted with them. And
that's research?
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-14 21:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was engaged in a process. I was finding Judyth. I kept an open mind.

To continually berate any poster here for doing that is imo really
unprofessional.

But at least McAdams is consistent!
John McAdams
2017-06-14 21:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I was engaged in a process. I was finding Judyth. I kept an open mind.
To continually berate any poster here for doing that is imo really
unprofessional.
But at least McAdams is consistent!
You can't use language honestly.

You belong in a humanities department somewhere as a whiny,
politically correct professor.

By "acknowledge your process" you mean accede to your demands that
nobody could express skepticism about Judyth until *you* said they
could.

Do you have any *idea* how arrogant that was?

You were free to say anything you wanted. But you didn't accept that
other people were too. You were intolerant of different viewpoints.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 17:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
I was engaged in a process. I was finding Judyth. I kept an open mind.
To continually berate any poster here for doing that is imo really
unprofessional.
McAdams doesn't believe in open minds.
Or Free Speech.
Post by j***@gmail.com
But at least McAdams is consistent!
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-16 14:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
I was engaged in a process. I was finding Judyth. I kept an open mind.
To continually berate any poster here for doing that is imo really
unprofessional.
McAdams doesn't believe in open minds.
Or Free Speech.
So go away. Leave. Get out. Start your own group and maybe you'll get two
members, a couple of old people in wheelchairs who live alone with their
cats and have nothing else to do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
But at least McAdams is consistent!
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-21 02:57:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is one example of how a debate could have gone:

McA: You keep bringing up Lee and Judyth both working at Reily Coffee.
In fact, you do that ad nauseum. Why is that important to you? Just
because they worked in the same building does not mean they even met.

Me: But they were hired the same day.

McA: Merely a coincidence.

Me: Perhaps. How many people do you think worked at Reily at that time?

McA: I have no idea.

Me: About 100.

McA: So?

Me: If they were an item while they worked at Reily, don't you think
someone would have seen them together?

McA: I don't know. I hadn't thought about that.

Me: How many witnesses has Judyth brought forth from her days at Reily?

McA: None.

Me: Bingo. Now you know why I keep bringing that up.

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
John McAdams
2017-06-21 03:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
McA: You keep bringing up Lee and Judyth both working at Reily Coffee.
In fact, you do that ad nauseum. Why is that important to you? Just
because they worked in the same building does not mean they even met.
Me: But they were hired the same day.
McA: Merely a coincidence.
Me: Perhaps. How many people do you think worked at Reily at that time?
McA: I have no idea.
Me: About 100.
McA: So?
Me: If they were an item while they worked at Reily, don't you think
someone would have seen them together?
McA: I don't know. I hadn't thought about that.
Me: How many witnesses has Judyth brought forth from her days at Reily?
McA: None.
Me: Bingo. Now you know why I keep bringing that up.
Of course, nothing like that happened, since Pamela did not debate.

Without spending all night digging up her old posts, here is how Barb
described Pamela's actions:

<Quote on>

You have NOT been sitting on any sidelines. ROTFL. You have refused to
engage in reasoned discussion on the evidence of her case and any
findings, but you have been right smack in the middle of the playing
field attcking the characters and research of those who have bothered
to discuss and research her claims, always chiding, misrepresenting
and scolding researchers who dared to research your *friend* .... one
that you even gave money to, which is not in keeping with the farcical
"sidelines" either.

Hope your "process" involves some actual evidence. We've had 10 years
of your musings.

<end quote>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KaidGz3oNLw/6_rfwMuHOPwJ

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bpete1969
2017-06-21 18:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
McA: You keep bringing up Lee and Judyth both working at Reily Coffee.
In fact, you do that ad nauseum. Why is that important to you? Just
because they worked in the same building does not mean they even met.
Me: But they were hired the same day.
McA: Merely a coincidence.
Me: Perhaps. How many people do you think worked at Reily at that time?
McA: I have no idea.
Me: About 100.
McA: So?
Me: If they were an item while they worked at Reily, don't you think
someone would have seen them together?
McA: I don't know. I hadn't thought about that.
Me: How many witnesses has Judyth brought forth from her days at Reily?
McA: None.
Me: Bingo. Now you know why I keep bringing that up.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
The world is still waiting for Judyth to prove that they were hired on the
same day. You seem to forget there was the Standard Coffee job before she
was "moved" to Riley. Judyth saying they were hired on the same day is not
proof.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-22 13:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by j***@gmail.com
McA: You keep bringing up Lee and Judyth both working at Reily Coffee.
In fact, you do that ad nauseum. Why is that important to you? Just
because they worked in the same building does not mean they even met.
Me: But they were hired the same day.
McA: Merely a coincidence.
Me: Perhaps. How many people do you think worked at Reily at that time?
McA: I have no idea.
Me: About 100.
McA: So?
Me: If they were an item while they worked at Reily, don't you think
someone would have seen them together?
McA: I don't know. I hadn't thought about that.
Me: How many witnesses has Judyth brought forth from her days at Reily?
McA: None.
Me: Bingo. Now you know why I keep bringing that up.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
The world is still waiting for Judyth to prove that they were hired on the
same day. You seem to forget there was the Standard Coffee job before she
Where did she say that?
Post by bpete1969
was "moved" to Riley. Judyth saying they were hired on the same day is not
proof.
Loading...