Discussion:
Proposal for a new rule for the NewsGroup
(too old to reply)
GKnoll
2018-08-02 16:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am proposing a new rule.

Here it is...

When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.

Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
Mark
2018-08-03 02:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I wouldn't. Taking the time to run a Newsgroup and publish posts like
yours above should have at least one perk.

Instead of worrying about when the moderator's opinions show up, I'd
think you would be most concerned about trying to counter them. Mark
GKnoll
2018-08-04 02:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I wouldn't. Taking the time to run a Newsgroup and publish posts like
yours above should have at least one perk.
Instead of worrying about when the moderator's opinions show up, I'd
think you would be most concerned about trying to counter them. Mark
The way he moderates does not justify any perks of any kind. He takes
way too long to add messages to the news group. He also is much to
biased in both his views and his moderation. You do not see it, but I
do, because I am one of his victims.
Mark
2018-08-05 03:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I wouldn't. Taking the time to run a Newsgroup and publish posts like
yours above should have at least one perk.
Instead of worrying about when the moderator's opinions show up, I'd
think you would be most concerned about trying to counter them. Mark
The way he moderates does not justify any perks of any kind. He takes
way too long to add messages to the news group. He also is much to
biased in both his views and his moderation. You do not see it, but I
do, because I am one of his victims.
I not sure how to answer what are pretty vague accusations, GKnoll.
Let me try the following.

No, moderated NGs are not the same as un-moderated ones. The former
are, IMO, more mature groups and require some adult patience. Moderators
have other things to do. I also would like to see my posts sooner than
later, but I understand the situation.

Perhaps you should post on here and at the alt.conspiracy group, where
the waiting time is much less.

I'm open to seeing anything. But I don't see how McAdams' views affect
his moderating. But, please, if you'd like, have at it and show how they
do, preferably with examples.

One thing I do see, and apparently you guys don't, is the irony that
you and Marsh slam McAdams for censorship in posts that HE ALLOWS ON HERE.

I'm thinking a censorship-minded Moderator would censor such posts.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I wouldn't. Taking the time to run a Newsgroup and publish posts like
yours above should have at least one perk.
Instead of worrying about when the moderator's opinions show up, I'd
think you would be most concerned about trying to counter them. Mark
The way he moderates does not justify any perks of any kind. He takes
way too long to add messages to the news group. He also is much to
biased in both his views and his moderation. You do not see it, but I
do, because I am one of his victims.
I not sure how to answer what are pretty vague accusations, GKnoll.
Let me try the following.
No, moderated NGs are not the same as un-moderated ones. The former
This is not a properly moderated newsgroup according to its own rules
and UseNet policy.
Post by Mark
are, IMO, more mature groups and require some adult patience. Moderators
have other things to do. I also would like to see my posts sooner than
later, but I understand the situation.
Not McAdams? Didn't you hear, he doesn't have a job.
I don't complain about the timing because I know he is in a different
time zone. I complain about his lack of morals and common decency.
Post by Mark
Perhaps you should post on here and at the alt.conspiracy group, where
the waiting time is much less.
Garbage. You're like the restaurant owner who says, "If you don't like
the food, don't eat here."
Post by Mark
I'm open to seeing anything. But I don't see how McAdams' views affect
Nope. You need to have everything censored so that you won't
accidentally see the truth. I once had to cut out all the JFK autopsy
pictures for a guy who bought Groden's book. It was too much for him.
Post by Mark
his moderating. But, please, if you'd like, have at it and show how they
do, preferably with examples.
We are not allowed to show examples. Those are censored. DUH!
Post by Mark
One thing I do see, and apparently you guys don't, is the irony that
you and Marsh slam McAdams for censorship in posts that HE ALLOWS ON HERE.
Silly, you doon't see the hundreds of my messages which never get posted.
Post by Mark
I'm thinking a censorship-minded Moderator would censor such posts.
He does.
Post by Mark
Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Mark
Not worth a wooden nickle.
I could send you some steel pennies if you leave your real name and real
address!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
   I wouldn't.  Taking the time to run a Newsgroup and publish posts like
yours above should have at least one perk.
   Instead of worrying about when the moderator's opinions show up, I'd
think you would be most concerned about trying to counter them.  Mark
The way he moderates does not justify any perks of any kind. He takes
way too long to add messages to the news group. He also is much to
biased in both his views and his moderation. You do not see it, but I
do, because I am one of his victims.
You seem confused. Maybe it's the first time you've been on Usenet.
There are supposed to be 3 moderators, but McAadams took over this
newsgoup and now rules it as a censor, not a moderator. So he can make
up and break any rule he wants on a whim.
He rejected my message for using the word FREE.
I can't tell you the other words he rejected simply because his Cockney
filter failed.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-03 13:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
Steve Barber
2018-08-04 03:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
This NG is the only thing you've got going for you, Marsh, so why do
you complain? What else are you going to do with your time? You live for
this NG. It shows in every post.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
This NG is the only thing you've got going for you, Marsh, so why do
you complain? What else are you going to do with your time? You live for
this NG. It shows in every post.
Excuse me? Why would I post on the gardening newsgroup when I don't have
a garden? Use what little brain you have. I post about things that I am
interested in. You have no right to restrict my Freedom of Speech.
Nor do you have the right to try to shut down my web sites.
Mark
2018-08-05 03:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
You want to inform us how a person without "common courtesy, fairness or
decency" allowed you to post that on here? Mark
Jason Burke
2018-08-06 03:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
You want to inform us how a person without "common courtesy, fairness or
decency" allowed you to post that on here? Mark
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
   You want to inform us how a person without "common courtesy,
fairness or
decency" allowed you to post that on here?  Mark
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Buzz! He proved my point for me.
And you do every day.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
What?
You are expecting something like common courtesy, fairness or decency?
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup for that. This newsgroup is run by
the WC defenders.
You want to inform us how a person without "common courtesy, fairness or
decency" allowed you to post that on here? Mark
Huh? You are saying that you would reject my post for daring to
criticize someone. You kinda prove my point for me.
David Von Pein
2018-08-03 20:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.

.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
GKnoll
2018-08-04 23:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint that
will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to manipulate
the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he posts new
messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list to understand
what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?

I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to any
moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To the
contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to be fair
when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why I do not
participate in any open forums, well that is the reason. I always found,
no matter where I went, that there was always some moderator that did not
like the way I debated and then the bias would begin. I always followed
the rules, but I can say with complete certainty that the people who
attacked me did not, not only that, but I usually found that the moderator
of these forums would actually encourage the attacks. Soon there would be
two sets of rules, the rules applied to me and the rules which were
applied to others.
Jason Burke
2018-08-06 03:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint that
will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to
manipulate the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he
posts new messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list
to understand what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?
Oh Christ. Stop whining.
Post by GKnoll
I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to
any moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To the
contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to be
fair when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why I do
not participate in any open forums, well that is the reason. I always
found, no matter where I went, that there was always some moderator that
did not like the way I debated and then the bias would begin. I always
followed the rules, but I can say with complete certainty that the
people who attacked me did not, not only that, but I usually found that
the moderator of these forums would actually encourage the attacks. Soon
there would be two sets of rules, the rules applied to me and the rules
which were applied to others.
Somebody call the wambulance.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by GKnoll
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint
that will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to
manipulate the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he
posts new messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list
to understand what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?
Oh Christ. Stop whining.
Yes, that's what the KKK said when they hanged blacks.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by GKnoll
I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to
any moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To
the contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to
be fair when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why
I do not participate in any open forums, well that is the reason. I
always found, no matter where I went, that there was always some
moderator that did not like the way I debated and then the bias would
begin. I always followed the rules, but I can say with complete
certainty that the people who attacked me did not, not only that, but
I usually found that the moderator of these forums would actually
encourage the attacks. Soon there would be two sets of rules, the
rules applied to me and the rules which were applied to others.
Somebody call the wambulance.
Somebody call the UseNet police.
Steve Barber
2018-08-06 03:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint that
will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to manipulate
the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he posts new
messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list to understand
what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?
I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to any
moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To the
contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to be fair
when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why I do not
participate in any open forums, well that is the reason.
I've got news for you. If you aren't mentally equipped to handle
yourself in an open forum, then you hiding behind John, here. You can't
have it both ways. You're complaining about the length of time it takes
for comments to be posted. Then you complain that in an open forum, you
picked on.


I always found,
Post by GKnoll
no matter where I went, that there was always some moderator that did not
like the way I debated and then the bias would begin. I always followed
the rules, but I can say with complete certainty that the people who
attacked me did not, not only that, but I usually found that the moderator
of these forums would actually encourage the attacks. Soon there would be
two sets of rules, the rules applied to me and the rules which were
applied to others.
LOL! I can't believe what I just read. Oh wait....yes I can! You aren't
worth the time of day. I'm sorry I ever gave you a millisecond of my
valuable time. I under stated the facts in my email to you. Well, you're
on your own. You and your buddy, Marsh have fun.
GKnoll
2018-08-07 03:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint that
will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to manipulate
the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he posts new
messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list to understand
what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?
I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to any
moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To the
contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to be fair
when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why I do not
participate in any open forums, well that is the reason.
I've got news for you. If you aren't mentally equipped to handle
yourself in an open forum, then you hiding behind John, here. You can't
have it both ways. You're complaining about the length of time it takes
for comments to be posted. Then you complain that in an open forum, you
picked on.
Yeah, thats it, I am not mentally equipped to handle myself. Even though
I have been beating your pants off for the better part of a year. So
what does that say about you?
Post by Steve Barber
I always found,
Post by GKnoll
no matter where I went, that there was always some moderator that did not
like the way I debated and then the bias would begin. I always followed
the rules, but I can say with complete certainty that the people who
attacked me did not, not only that, but I usually found that the moderator
of these forums would actually encourage the attacks. Soon there would be
two sets of rules, the rules applied to me and the rules which were
applied to others.
LOL! I can't believe what I just read. Oh wait....yes I can! You aren't
worth the time of day. I'm sorry I ever gave you a millisecond of my
valuable time. I under stated the facts in my email to you. Well, you're
on your own. You and your buddy, Marsh have fun.
You are not fooling anybody Barber. You are running away. That email you
sent to me, that showed me the real Steve Barber. I know all about
Duncan Macrae.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint that
will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to manipulate
the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he posts new
messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list to understand
what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?
I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to any
moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To the
contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to be fair
when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why I do not
participate in any open forums, well that is the reason.
I've got news for you. If you aren't mentally equipped to handle
yourself in an open forum, then you hiding behind John, here. You can't
have it both ways. You're complaining about the length of time it takes
for comments to be posted. Then you complain that in an open forum, you
picked on.
I always found,
Post by GKnoll
no matter where I went, that there was always some moderator that did not
like the way I debated and then the bias would begin. I always followed
the rules, but I can say with complete certainty that the people who
attacked me did not, not only that, but I usually found that the moderator
of these forums would actually encourage the attacks. Soon there would be
two sets of rules, the rules applied to me and the rules which were
applied to others.
LOL! I can't believe what I just read. Oh wait....yes I can! You aren't
worth the time of day. I'm sorry I ever gave you a millisecond of my
valuable time. I under stated the facts in my email to you. Well, you're
on your own. You and your buddy, Marsh have fun.
You aren't supposed to send e-nmails for forum members.
You should always post anything in the newsgroup. I thought you knew the
rules. You sent me an e-mail, but I realized that you were using a
cheapo newsreader and didn't know the difference and hit the wrong button.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
He does not deserve a perk. To the contrary, he needs a constraint that
will force him to be less biased in his moderation. He likes to
He used to have one or two. Originally the rules of this newsgroup
required 3 moderators, at least one of which had to be a sconspiracy
believer and another had to be a WC defender. To take any action other
than approve a routine message they would have to vote and do whatever
the majority decided upon. Then McAdams took over the newsgroup and got
rid of the other 2 moderators so now he is the moderator and he makes up
the rules every day on a whim.
Post by GKnoll
manipulate the newsgroup. One of the ways he does that is by how he
posts new messages to the group. You would have to be on his sh#$ list
to understand what I am saying. Ask me how i Know?
His best trick is to start a new thread in order to defend Trump or
attack Trump opponents then when they fight back he bans the very thread
he started for being too political.
Post by GKnoll
I have never sucked up to McAdams. In fact, I have never sucked up to
Good little minion.
Post by GKnoll
any moderator of any forum I have participated in over the years. To the
contrary, I always challenge the owner or moderator of a forum to be
AH, hate to be the one to rell you, but this is not a forum and it's
certainly not McAdams forum. This is a UseNet newgroup and belongs to
everyone and had guidlines which McAdams routinely violates.
Post by GKnoll
fair when it is obvious that they are not. Barber wants to know why I do
not participate in any open forums, well that is the reason. I always
found, no matter where I went, that there was always some moderator that
did not like the way I debated and then the bias would begin. I always
followed the rules, but I can say with complete certainty that the
people who attacked me did not, not only that, but I usually found that
the moderator of these forums would actually encourage the attacks. Soon
there would be two sets of rules, the rules applied to me and the rules
which were applied to others.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-04 23:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
That's a silly proposal.
.John deserves at least *one* perk for having to wade through all the
pro-conspiracy nonsense he has to read every single day.
His perk is being able to attack all conspiracy believers.
Steve Barber
2018-08-03 20:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
GKnoll
2018-08-04 23:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
I went into an open forum, don't you remember? I placed a comment in
your youtube channel. Then you deleted my comment.
Steve Barber
2018-08-06 03:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
I went into an open forum, don't you remember? I placed a comment in
your youtube channel. Then you deleted my comment.
That isn't an open forum and you know it. The only reason it was
deleted was because it was on my channel. I have no control over Duncan
McRae's forum. But thanks for trying. All you did was show me what a
coward you are. You won't go anywhere where this can be hashed out
without having to wait for a day for posts to go up. So it's up to you.
Either suffer here and stop complaining about .John or let's go to a place
where we can respond to each other one on one, immediately.
GKnoll
2018-08-07 03:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
I went into an open forum, don't you remember? I placed a comment in
your youtube channel. Then you deleted my comment.
That isn't an open forum and you know it. The only reason it was
deleted was because it was on my channel. I have no control over Duncan
McRae's forum. But thanks for trying. All you did was show me what a
coward you are. You won't go anywhere where this can be hashed out
without having to wait for a day for posts to go up. So it's up to you.
Either suffer here and stop complaining about .John or let's go to a place
where we can respond to each other one on one, immediately.
Coward? I went to your turf. Your Youtube Channel. You controlled it. I
was ready to debate you there. I was hoping that policeman friend of yours
would show up so I could show him my side of the argument. But you deleted
the very first (and only) post I ever made. So do not talk to me about who
is a coward.

Steve you need to get your sh#$ together. One time you are saying that you
are sorry you spend one millisecond on me and the next you are telling me
to go someplace where we can hash this out without having to wait a day
for posts.

I know you steve, you are not going to hash anything out. You do not
answer any questions. You just bluff and insult. and you are tired of
getting whooped in public. That is all.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
I went into an open forum, don't you remember? I placed a comment in
your youtube channel. Then you deleted my comment.
That isn't an open forum and you know it. The only reason it was
Ah ha! So finally you admit that is is NOT an open forum.
Only WC defenders like you are allowed and conspiracy believers are
kicked out.
Post by Steve Barber
deleted was because it was on my channel. I have no control over Duncan
McRae's forum. But thanks for trying. All you did was show me what a
YOUR channel? Like you own it? Was it Channel 4 or channel 5?
Don't pick Channel 3, that's reserved.
Post by Steve Barber
coward you are. You won't go anywhere where this can be hashed out
without having to wait for a day for posts to go up. So it's up to you.
Either suffer here and stop complaining about .John or let's go to a place
where we can respond to each other one on one, immediately.
Hashed out? You have to answer questions to hash out something and you
refuse to do that. You never respond. You only attack like a badger.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
  I have a question for you.  Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
I went into an open forum, don't you remember? I placed a comment in
your youtube channel. Then you deleted my comment.
How rude!
Maybe you scared him by asking him to prove something.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-04 23:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
Such as? You mean the Nut House?
Post by Steve Barber
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
Because it is also dominated by the cover-up.
Post by Steve Barber
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
But people who believe in conspiracy are kicked out.
Steve Barber
2018-08-06 03:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
Such as? You mean the Nut House?
Why not? You can say whatever you want in there. No rules. I've seen
you--a conspiracy buff get beaten up badly there by other conspiracy
buffs., but right there is a place you are free to post whatever you want,
and face no "kicking out".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
Because it is also dominated by the cover-up.
No it isn't. There are far more conspiracy buffs in there than there
are those who believe Oswald was the lone assassin. You were disciplined
there for bad behavior for two weeks, and you never went back. That was
your choice, Duncan didn't kick" you out. He's the most reasonable
moderator out of all the forums out there. I have known of all kinds of
"lone nutters" kicked out of forums, so what's the beef? It isn't always
just conspiracy buffs who are ridiculed. Remember...it's those of you
naysayers who claim to dominate the polls with how more people believe in
a conspiracy than not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
But people who believe in conspiracy are kicked out.
BS!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
Such as? You mean the Nut House?
Why not? You can say whatever you want in there. No rules. I've seen
you--a conspiracy buff get beaten up badly there by other conspiracy
buffs., but right there is a place you are free to post whatever you want,
and face no "kicking out".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
Because it is also dominated by the cover-up.
No it isn't. There are far more conspiracy buffs in there than there
are those who believe Oswald was the lone assassin. You were disciplined
there for bad behavior for two weeks, and you never went back. That was
your choice, Duncan didn't kick" you out. He's the most reasonable
moderator out of all the forums out there. I have known of all kinds of
"lone nutters" kicked out of forums, so what's the beef? It isn't always
just conspiracy buffs who are ridiculed. Remember...it's those of you
naysayers who claim to dominate the polls with how more people believe in
a conspiracy than not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
But people who believe in conspiracy are kicked out.
BS!
I was, because I believe in conspiracy.
You just admitted to someone else that it's not an open forum.
You need to coordinate your replies better.
GKnoll
2018-08-05 03:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.

I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?

I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.

You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.

Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.

So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Steve Barber
2018-08-06 03:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).

I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
GKnoll
2018-08-07 04:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
You should waste your time with someone who thinks the Dictabelt skipped
because it did. And I think you know that. The question is, when did you
know that?

Oh God, I have heard this song and dance before. "I am not going to
because blah blah blah and when I do it will not be in the NG. We both
know your bluffing because we both know where the fragment is located.

When you stonewall and do not tell the members something as simple as
where the three fragments are located it creates suspicion. Not just with
me but with others.
Post by Steve Barber
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You can say what you want but I got tired of waiting. I went above your
head on this.
GKnoll
2018-08-07 04:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
Just post it. Either you know where its located or you don't. There is
not middle ground.

You are not doing it for me. These are things you should have done long
ago for everyone.
Post by Steve Barber
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
GKnoll
2018-08-07 04:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"

definition of limited purpose public figure

a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
Steve Barber
2018-08-08 06:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.

I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
GKnoll
2018-08-09 01:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
Steve Barber
2018-08-09 23:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
GKnoll
2018-08-10 20:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
Steve Barber
2018-08-11 22:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
Good luck with whomever. You've bitten off way more than you can chew.
Now, join me at Duncan's forum.
GKnoll
2018-08-12 20:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
Good luck with whomever. You've bitten off way more than you can chew.
Now, join me at Duncan's forum.
I am not playing games with you anymore. You know there is a skip. There
is no doubt about it. The more you try to hide it the more suspicious it
looks that you never mentioned it for 37 years.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 19:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
      I have a question for you.  Why is it that you won't go
into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
     Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the
Dictabelt
skipped, now?  In due time, when I am finished writing what I am
working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this.
However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it.  I'm sick and tired of this back and
forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you.  I under
stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
      I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a
private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust
themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you?  After the bullshit over the
Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me!  Who do you think you are?
     You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or
Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup.  I want
to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up.  The choice is yours. Either place. I
will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
     You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy,
I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
    Good luck with whomever. You've bitten off way more than you can
chew.
Now, join me at Duncan's forum.
I am not playing games with you anymore. You know there is a skip. There
is no doubt about it. The more you try to hide it the more suspicious it
looks that you never mentioned it for 37 years.
Steve doesn't even understand that sometimes the same word is repeated a
couple of seconds later due to a skip.
Michael O'Dell
2018-08-16 02:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new
thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line
like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the
lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
      I have a question for you.  Why is it that you won't go
into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the
time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still
remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
     Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that
the Dictabelt
skipped, now?  In due time, when I am finished writing what I
am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this.
However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it.  I'm sick and tired of this back and
forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you.  I under
stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
      I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a
private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you?  After the bullshit over the
Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me!  Who do you think you are?
     You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or
Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup.  I want
to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up.  The choice is yours. Either place. I
will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
     You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my
mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
    Good luck with whomever. You've bitten off way more than you can
chew.
Now, join me at Duncan's forum.
I am not playing games with you anymore. You know there is a skip.
There is no doubt about it. The more you try to hide it the more
suspicious it looks that you never mentioned it for 37 years.
Steve doesn't even understand that sometimes the same word is repeated a
couple of seconds later due to a skip.
Anthony doesn't even understand that we aren't talking about the channel
2 Audograph here.

Michael
GKnoll
2018-08-12 20:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
Good luck with whomever. You've bitten off way more than you can chew.
Now, join me at Duncan's forum.
I am not playing games with you anymore. You know there is a skip. There
is no doubt about it. The more you stonewall the more suspicious it looks.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 19:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
?????????? I have a question for you.?? Why is it that you won't go
into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
???????? Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the
Dictabelt
skipped, now??? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am
working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this.
However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it.?? I'm sick and tired of this back and
forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you.?? I under
stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
?????????? I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a
private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust
themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you??? After the bullshit over the
Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me!?? Who do you think you are?
???????? You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or
Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup.?? I want
to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up.?? The choice is yours. Either place. I
will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
???????? You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy,
I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
No, I am not at your mercy. I told you, I went above your head.
?????? Good luck with whomever. You've bitten off way more than you can
chew.
Now, join me at Duncan's forum.
I am not playing games with you anymore. You know there is a skip. There
is no doubt about it. The more you stonewall the more suspicious it looks.
Maybe he doesn't know what a skip is. Was that the name of his dog?
GKnoll
2018-08-11 04:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
You are not fooling anyone. You are running away.

I am not asking you to explain anything to me. I am asking you to admit
the truth. In case you have not noticed, I am the one who has been
explaining things to you. You have been avoiding the truth.

This is about the 20th time you said you will not respond to me. I keep
telling, you not make promises you cannot keep.
Steve Barber
2018-08-11 22:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
You are not fooling anyone. You are running away.
I am not asking you to explain anything to me. I am asking you to admit
the truth. In case you have not noticed, I am the one who has been
explaining things to you. You have been avoiding the truth.
This is about the 20th time you said you will not respond to me. I keep
telling, you not make promises you cannot keep.
I'll make 21.

There's a reason. I have too much fun with you. You've bitten off way more
than you can chew stating that you believe your theory to be "breaking new
ground" and "...one of the most important questions for the JFK Research
Community in 37 years". Although I don't expect you to accept my proof
that you are 100% wrong anymore than you do with your Murray Jackson
nonsense, the fact is, is that I don't care whether or not *you* accept or
believe my proof that you're wrong or not. My point is to provide the
evidence opposing your nonsense, and allow the people whom you are trying
to persuade, an opportunity to see that the Decker crosstalk is intact on
channel 1, and that your click theory is just that--a theory. In other
words, there are two sides to every coin, I am providing a look at the
other side. Never, ever say that I am "running away" because that is far,
far from the truth.
GKnoll
2018-08-12 20:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
You are not fooling anyone. You are running away.
I am not asking you to explain anything to me. I am asking you to admit
the truth. In case you have not noticed, I am the one who has been
explaining things to you. You have been avoiding the truth.
This is about the 20th time you said you will not respond to me. I keep
telling, you not make promises you cannot keep.
I'll make 21.
There's a reason. I have too much fun with you. You've bitten off way more
than you can chew stating that you believe your theory to be "breaking new
ground" and "...one of the most important questions for the JFK Research
Community in 37 years". Although I don't expect you to accept my proof
that you are 100% wrong anymore than you do with your Murray Jackson
nonsense, the fact is, is that I don't care whether or not *you* accept or
believe my proof that you're wrong or not. My point is to provide the
evidence opposing your nonsense, and allow the people whom you are trying
to persuade, an opportunity to see that the Decker crosstalk is intact on
channel 1, and that your click theory is just that--a theory. In other
words, there are two sides to every coin, I am providing a look at the
other side. Never, ever say that I am "running away" because that is far,
far from the truth.
If you really believed what you just said you would have given your
proof a long time ago.

Lets see your proof.
GKnoll
2018-08-12 20:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
You are not fooling anyone. You are running away.
I am not asking you to explain anything to me. I am asking you to admit
the truth. In case you have not noticed, I am the one who has been
explaining things to you. You have been avoiding the truth.
This is about the 20th time you said you will not respond to me. I keep
telling, you not make promises you cannot keep.
I'll make 21.
There's a reason. I have too much fun with you. You've bitten off way more
than you can chew stating that you believe your theory to be "breaking new
ground" and "...one of the most important questions for the JFK Research
Community in 37 years". Although I don't expect you to accept my proof
that you are 100% wrong anymore than you do with your Murray Jackson
nonsense, the fact is, is that I don't care whether or not *you* accept or
believe my proof that you're wrong or not. My point is to provide the
evidence opposing your nonsense, and allow the people whom you are trying
to persuade, an opportunity to see that the Decker crosstalk is intact on
channel 1, and that your click theory is just that--a theory. In other
words, there are two sides to every coin, I am providing a look at the
other side. Never, ever say that I am "running away" because that is far,
far from the truth.
Yes, I know, you are going to try to show that there is another way to
look at. Well get on with it.

So far all you have done is talk.
GKnoll
2018-08-13 15:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
      I have a question for you.  Why is it that you won't go
into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
     Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the
Dictabelt
skipped, now?  In due time, when I am finished writing what I am
working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this.
However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it.  I'm sick and tired of this back and
forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you.  I under
stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
      I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a
private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust
themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you?  After the bullshit over the
Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me!  Who do you think you are?
     You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or
Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup.  I want
to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up.  The choice is yours. Either place. I
will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
     You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy,
I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
You are not fooling anyone. You are running away.
I am not asking you to explain anything to me. I am asking you to admit
the truth. In case you have not noticed, I am the one who has been
explaining things to you. You have been avoiding the truth.
This is about the 20th time you said you will not respond to me. I keep
telling, you not make promises you cannot keep.
   I'll make 21.
There's a reason. I have too much fun with you. You've bitten off way more
than you can chew stating that you believe your theory to be "breaking new
ground" and "...one of the most important questions for the JFK Research
Community in 37 years". Although I don't expect you to accept my proof
that you are 100% wrong anymore than you do with your Murray Jackson
nonsense, the fact is, is that I don't care whether or not *you* accept or
believe my proof that you're wrong or not.  My point is to provide the
evidence opposing your nonsense, and allow the people whom you are trying
to persuade, an opportunity to see that the Decker crosstalk is intact on
channel 1, and that your click theory is just that--a theory. In other
words, there are two sides to every coin, I am providing a look at the
other side. Never, ever say that I am "running away" because that is far,
far from the truth.
Yes, I know, you are going to try to show that there is another way to
look at. Well get on with it.
So far all you have done is talk.
I just read the article you published on Dale Myers website.

There are a lot of statements that just do not make sense but I am not
going to get into them here.

All I want to point out is, you still have not told members where
EXACTLY you hear the word 'determine". That is what this has all been
about.

You can wave your hands and say I am Steve Barber, believe me, there are
no skips on the recording. The recording itself proves you wrong.
Steve Barber
2018-08-12 19:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
You can show everyone what is going on here. You can post images here.
You read what I said. I meant what I said. You are at my mercy, I am
not at yours. You are making demands of me to "explain" things to you, and
I will no longer respond to your tripe within this NG. Either meet me at
The assassination Forum, or forget it!
You are not fooling anyone. You are running away.
I am not asking you to explain anything to me. I am asking you to admit
the truth. In case you have not noticed, I am the one who has been
explaining things to you. You have been avoiding the truth.
P.s. Your definition of "truth" and what actually *is* the truth are not
one and the same. So, no. I will absolutely *NOT* admit anything that you
claim is the "truth".

The only thing I have been avoiding is the grief of explaining things to
you within this newsgroup and having to wait 20-24 hours at times for the
post to go up. You may have a lot of patience but I don't when it comes
to the crap you are dishing out.
Post by GKnoll
This is about the 20th time you said you will not respond to me. I keep
telling, you not make promises you cannot keep.
And I told you, I don't make "promises". You will not find the word
"promise(s)" within my post. You, therefore, misused the word where I am
concerned.
GKnoll
2018-08-09 02:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following within
the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not think it
is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to think that all
of a sudden you would start answering the questions that you have been
asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a different
forum.
Steve Barber
2018-08-09 23:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following within
the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not think it
is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to think that all
of a sudden you would start answering the questions that you have been
asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a different
forum.
Well, you think or believe what you want. That's your problem.
GKnoll
2018-08-10 20:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following within
the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not think it
is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to think that all
of a sudden you would start answering the questions that you have been
asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a different
forum.
Well, you think or believe what you want. That's your problem.
You are the one who has the problem.

It is always a friggin fight with you to spit out the truth about
something. I am really kind of sick of it. All I can do is expose it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-10 13:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
?????? I have a question for you.?? Why is it that you won't go into
an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
???? Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the
Dictabelt
skipped, now??? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am
working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this.?? However, it
isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it.?? I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you.?? I under stated
what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
?????? I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private
citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you??? After the bullshit over the Murray
Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me!?? Who do you think you are?
???? You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's
forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup.?? I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up.?? The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following
within the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not
think it is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to
think that all of a sudden you would start answering the questions that
you have been asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a
different forum.
Steve doesn't understand the difference between a Newsgroup and an e-mail.
He sent me an e-mail that was supposed to go to the newsgroup. At least he
knows how to hit SEND. So we're making progress.
Steve Barber
2018-08-11 04:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
?????? I have a question for you.?? Why is it that you won't go into
an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
???? Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the
Dictabelt
skipped, now??? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am
working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this.?? However, it
isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it.?? I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you.?? I under stated
what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
?????? I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private
citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you??? After the bullshit over the Murray
Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me!?? Who do you think you are?
???? You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's
forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup.?? I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up.?? The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following
within the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not
think it is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to
think that all of a sudden you would start answering the questions that
you have been asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a
different forum.
Steve doesn't understand the difference between a Newsgroup and an e-mail.
He sent me an e-mail that was supposed to go to the newsgroup. At least he
knows how to hit SEND. So we're making progress.
Correction. It was you, Marsh, that I was receiving emails from when
you would post here at this NG. You'd better check your memory. I bawled
you out and told you to stop sending me emails of your posts to this NG,
just a few months ago. But you already know all about this. You're just
taking your usual cheap shots without stating the facts, and then accusing
me of not knowing the diff between a newsgroup and and email. And you have
the gall to accuse everyone else of attacking you. Unbelievable, but ever
so typical of you.
BT George
2018-08-10 15:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following within
the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not think it
is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to think that all
of a sudden you would start answering the questions that you have been
asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a different
forum.
If you are right, why wouldn't you follow him to the ends of the Earth?
If Steve is bluffing, why don't you call his bluff and go to Duncan's
forum? It's easy to come back over here and link to McRae's forum and
demonstrate whether he cut an ran, or whether he followed through?
GKnoll
2018-08-11 22:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following within
the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not think it
is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to think that all
of a sudden you would start answering the questions that you have been
asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a different
forum.
If you are right, why wouldn't you follow him to the ends of the Earth?
If Steve is bluffing, why don't you call his bluff and go to Duncan's
forum? It's easy to come back over here and link to McRae's forum and
demonstrate whether he cut an ran, or whether he followed through?
I am right and I do not need to follow him to the ends of the earth.

What part of my message did you not get, as I said I have two very nasty
emails that Steve sent to me, one of which begins "Since I am not
allowed to say the following within the newsgroup..."

What you should have done, is told Steve why can't he just post his
theory here, after all we have already exchange 100's of replies with
each other.

Steve is bluffing. He bluffs a lot.
GKnoll
2018-08-11 22:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
Since I have two very nasty emails that you sent me, the first of which
started with the words "Since I am not allowed to say the following within
the newsgroup...", I think I will decline your demand. I do not think it
is a serious demand at all. It would be ridiculous of me to think that all
of a sudden you would start answering the questions that you have been
asked in this forum (but refuse to answer) if I moved to a different
forum.
If you are right, why wouldn't you follow him to the ends of the Earth?
If Steve is bluffing, why don't you call his bluff and go to Duncan's
forum? It's easy to come back over here and link to McRae's forum and
demonstrate whether he cut an ran, or whether he followed through?
I am calling Steve's bluff. I do not have to go to another forum to do
that. Steve is running away.

He knows I won't go over there. I told him in my response to one of his
hateful emails that any further communication between me and him would be
done through this forum (meaning don't you ever send me another email like
that). He knows that. Steve is just trying to get out of this. I asked him
a very simple question...where exactly does he hear the "to determine"
fragment. Its been a month and he is still stonewalling.
claviger
2018-08-09 17:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.

I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
Steve Barber
2018-08-10 20:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.
I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
Not certain that you are addressing me, but...my stating that it takes too
long for posts to go up isn't a slam against .John because I am aware that
he is trying to post all these post responses on his own. This isn't what
I meant at all.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-11 03:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
Prove it.
You have no way of knowing what he is doing.
Post by claviger
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
Used to have? Like his students?
Prove that his students used to help run this newsgroup.

Oh, you mean the other moderators? They did very little and usually let
McAdams do whatever he wanted. Do you even remember them? Are you THAT
old?
Post by claviger
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.
I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
Depends on what time zone you are in. I do not expect McAdams to wake up
at 5 AM just to please you.
claviger
2018-08-13 05:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.
I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
Perfect would be a mid schedule:

midmorning, midday, mid afternoon, and midnight
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-14 15:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.
I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
midmorning, midday, mid afternoon, and midnight
Insane. Don't you realize that he has hundreds of messgaes to read and
censor every day. Give the guy a break.
How would YOU like to work from 6AM to midnight every day?
claviger
2018-08-15 02:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.
I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
midmorning, midday, mid afternoon, and midnight
Insane. Don't you realize that he has hundreds of messgaes to read and
censor every day. Give the guy a break.
How would YOU like to work from 6AM to midnight every day?
The greatest invention in the Latin American world is the siesta. We
would all be healthier and more productive if we took a one hour nap after
lunch. It's a proven scientific fact. I would highly suggest both you and
Professor McAdams take a restful siesta after lunch. In the business
world it's called a Power Nap. It has been scientifically proven so give
it a try.
Ace Kefford
2018-08-16 02:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Keep in mind McAdams does this job by himself with no other monitor like
he used to have. As such he needs the flexibility to make timely
notifications and announcements. He is not just another poster and as in
any other organization RHIP.
I wish it were possible to post at mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and after
the 10 o'clock news on a regular basis. Earlier and more often would be
fantastic. That kind of velocity would energize the standard debate and
take it to the next level and make it a bit more exciting.
midmorning, midday, mid afternoon, and midnight
Insane. Don't you realize that he has hundreds of messgaes to read and
censor every day. Give the guy a break.
How would YOU like to work from 6AM to midnight every day?
The greatest invention in the Latin American world is the siesta. We
would all be healthier and more productive if we took a one hour nap after
lunch. It's a proven scientific fact. I would highly suggest both you and
Professor McAdams take a restful siesta after lunch. In the business
world it's called a Power Nap. It has been scientifically proven so give
it a try.
You're right, except back in the day when you were a tourist and were
trying to cash travelers checks from say 11:30 to 2:00 pm. Rotsa ruck.
Ace Kefford
2018-08-10 15:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
Why should I waste my time with someone who thinks that the Dictabelt
skipped, now? In due time, when I am finished writing what I am working
on, then, and only then, will you hear from me on this. However, it isn't
going to be posted here in the NG. I'll let you know when and where it's
published. And i'll tell you right now, I am not "bluffing", so don't
start accusing me of it. I'm sick and tired of this back and forth BS
making demands of me to do this and that for you. I under stated what I
really think of you in my email to you(which you deserved to get from
me!).
I am not a "public figure". I'm nothing more than a private citizen who
You are right you are not a "public figure". You are a "limited purpose
public figure"
definition of limited purpose public figure
a limited purpose public figure = those who have "thrust themselves to
the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence
the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination"
is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public
figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
Post by Steve Barber
discovered something on a Dallas police recording and gave it to some
scientists, who then confirmed that something I'd heard was exactly what I
said I heard. I am described as a private citizen in the CBA report.
That's all. That is all it is and that is all it ever will be. I told you
I don't have to respond to anything if I don't wish to, and that's that,
and before you jump to another conclusion, saying that I won't respond to
what you think you you've found, think again. Why do you think I should
drop everything to answer you? After the bullshit over the Murray Jackson
bullshit, I am not going to respond to your BS until I am good and ready,
and if you don't knock it off with the 3rd degree, you on't get anything
more out of me! Who do you think you are?
You want to carry this on, Gknoll, go to the nuthouse or Duncan's forum,
or shut it up.
I am wasting no more time with you within this newsgroup. I want to take
this to a place where I can show everyone what is going on by being able
to post images and links to sound bites immediately, and no more of this
waiting for posts to go up. The choice is yours. Either place. I will
no longer respond to your tripe within this newsgroup.
I agree, go to the nuthouse. They're good for at least one wacky new
theory a week, usually two or three. The photoanalysis that goes on there
regularly strikes new ground.
odellm
2018-08-06 03:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
I'm going to jump in here, somewhat against my better judgement, but what
the hell. I'll respond here and the other thread. Beyond that is
doubtful.

You are off in la la land. This trivia question you have, "where exactly
do you hear the "try to determine" cross talk fragment on Channel 1?", is
just that. Trivia. It is very very far from "one of the most important
questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years." I know you want it
to be that, because you want to discover something important. But this
ain't it.

You want me to explain something about it, but I cannot fathom why you
should be expecting that. It's a point about which I've devoted about 0
hours of my time to, ever. It isn't something that ever mattered.

Steve gave you an honest answer that he didn't remember exactly what he
said many years ago. I don't remember much of what I said last year.
Without referring to emails or other documents, most of us might not
remember every detail. But he didn't tell you no. The fact is, if it had
come up he probably did tell them then, but it may not have. Once again,
because it isn't significant.

Finally, no, you have not shown that those crosstalk fragments prove there
was a skip on the Dictabelt. You have posted an unsupported assertion,
that's all. If you have an argument to make, make it. Make it
completely. Do the analysis, show your work. This habit of posting
fragmentary thoughts for people to jump at is silly. I won't be playing
that. I've advised Steve he shouldn't either, but of course that's up to
him.

Michael
GKnoll
2018-08-07 03:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
I'm going to jump in here, somewhat against my better judgement, but what
the hell. I'll respond here and the other thread. Beyond that is
doubtful.
You are off in la la land. This trivia question you have, "where exactly
do you hear the "try to determine" cross talk fragment on Channel 1?", is
just that. Trivia. It is very very far from "one of the most important
questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years." I know you want it
to be that, because you want to discover something important. But this
ain't it.
Why does it bug you that I said that? This is what it took for you to
come out of the woodwork and respond?

I told you once before that I never bluff. The simple fact is that this
is one of the most important questions in the JFK Research community for
the last 37 years.

I say that fragment proves that there was a back skip on the recorder
right before the "hold" crosstalk. You do not think that is important?
It proves that the NRC Panel was wrong when they said there was no
evidence of a skip on the the Dictabelt.

I don't want to discover something important. I did not say I discovered
this. Steve is the one who discovered the three fragments. I just
located it And once you find it, it becomes clear there is a skip on the
tape. I think what is really going on with you, is you are a little
jealous. Why else would you say something like that.
Post by odellm
You want me to explain something about it, but I cannot fathom why you
should be expecting that. It's a point about which I've devoted about 0
hours of my time to, ever. It isn't something that ever mattered.
Well it should have mattered. You have a very good talent of writing
words and actually saying nothing.
Post by odellm
Steve gave you an honest answer that he didn't remember exactly what he
said many years ago. I don't remember much of what I said last year.
Let Steve talk for himself. Only Steve knows if he gave an honest answer
or not. I merely pointed out that he had no trouble remembering he
published it in the TCI but could not remember if he told the DOJ, FBI
or Ramsey Panel.
Post by odellm
Without referring to emails or other documents, most of us might not
remember every detail. But he didn't tell you no. The fact is, if it had
come up he probably did tell them then, but it may not have. Once again,
So now you are trying to make an excuse for him? As I said before, let
Steve talk for himself.
Post by odellm
because it isn't significant.
How do you know its not significant? You just told me you know nothing
about them. You never studied them. I am telling you it is significant,
extremely significant.
Post by odellm
Finally, no, you have not shown that those crosstalk fragments prove there
was a skip on the Dictabelt. You have posted an unsupported assertion,
that's all. If you have an argument to make, make it. Make it
completely. Do the analysis, show your work. This habit of posting
fragmentary thoughts for people to jump at is silly. I won't be playing
that. I've advised Steve he shouldn't either, but of course that's up to
him.
I showed where exactly to look for the "try to determine" fragment on
the recording. I showed you exactly. Something Steve would not do. Now I
think you are plenty capable of finding it on the tape yourself. Why
don't you do that. I am not going to do all the work for you.
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael O'Dell
2018-08-14 01:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
???? I have a question for you.?? Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
I'm going to jump in here, somewhat against my better judgement, but what
the hell.?? I'll respond here and the other thread.?? Beyond that is
doubtful.
You are off in la la land.?? This trivia question you have, "where exactly
do you hear the "try to determine" cross talk fragment on Channel 1?", is
just that.?? Trivia.?? It is very very far from "one of the most important
questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years."?? I know you
want it
to be that, because you want to discover something important.?? But this
ain't it.
Why does it bug you that I said that? This is what it took for you to
come out of the woodwork and respond?
I told you once before that I never bluff. The simple fact is that this
is one of the most important questions in the JFK Research community for
the last 37 years.
I said nothing about it bugging me, or you bluffing. It is ridiculous
that you call some unsupported notion in your head the most important
question in 37 years. It says more about your ego than anything else.
Post by GKnoll
I say that fragment proves that there was a back skip on the recorder
right before the "hold" crosstalk. You do not think that is important?
It proves that the NRC Panel was wrong when they said there was no
evidence of a skip on the the Dictabelt.
This hypothetical idea you have, even if true, would not invalidate the
fact that "hold everything secure..." and the grassy knoll shot exist at
the same point on the recording. Sorry.
Post by GKnoll
I don't want to discover something important. I did not say I discovered
this. Steve is the one who discovered the three fragments. I just
located it And once you find it, it becomes clear there is a skip on the
tape. I think what is really going on with you, is you are a little
jealous. Why else would you say something like that.
What's going on with me is that I see someone who's very full of himself,
flooding this newsgroup with misinformation about a topic which most
readers won't have the background to know is wrong. So there needs to be
a voice speaking up once in a while to remind them.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
You want me to explain something about it, but I cannot fathom why you
should be expecting that.?? It's a point about which I've devoted about 0
hours of my time to, ever.?? It isn't something that ever mattered.
Well it should have mattered. You have a very good talent of writing
words and actually saying nothing.
You have a very good talent of reading words and missing what they say.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Steve gave you an honest answer that he didn't remember exactly what he
said many years ago.?? I don't remember much of what I said last year.
Let Steve talk for himself. Only Steve knows if he gave an honest answer
or not. I merely pointed out that he had no trouble remembering he
published it in the TCI but could not remember if he told the DOJ, FBI
or Ramsey Panel.
Steve did talk for himself. Now I'm talking, trying to explain a little
common sense to you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Without referring to emails or other documents, most of us might not
remember every detail.?? But he didn't tell you no.?? The fact is, if it
had
come up he probably did tell them then, but it may not have.?? Once again,
So now you are trying to make an excuse for him? As I said before, let
Steve talk for himself.
Post by odellm
because it isn't significant.
How do you know its not significant? You just told me you know nothing
about them. You never studied them. I am telling you it is significant,
extremely significant.
And you are wrong.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Finally, no, you have not shown that those crosstalk fragments prove there
was a skip on the Dictabelt.?? You have posted an unsupported assertion,
that's all.?? If you have an argument to make, make it.?? Make it
completely.?? Do the analysis, show your work.?? This habit of posting
fragmentary thoughts for people to jump at is silly.?? I won't be playing
that.?? I've advised Steve he shouldn't either, but of course that's up to
him.
I showed where exactly to look for the "try to determine" fragment on
the recording. I showed you exactly. Something Steve would not do. Now I
think you are plenty capable of finding it on the tape yourself. Why
don't you do that. I am not going to do all the work for you.
That's not how it works. If you have something to prove stop posting
junk to the newsgroup and go write up a thorough study to show it. Show
us that. Then, maybe, you'll have something worth talking about.

Audio clips where you just add some captions isn't good enough, and
nobody is going to go off and do it for you.

Michael
GKnoll
2018-08-15 00:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
???? I have a question for you.?? Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
I'm going to jump in here, somewhat against my better judgement, but what
the hell.?? I'll respond here and the other thread.?? Beyond that is
doubtful.
You are off in la la land.?? This trivia question you have, "where exactly
do you hear the "try to determine" cross talk fragment on Channel 1?", is
just that.?? Trivia.?? It is very very far from "one of the most important
questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years."?? I know you
want it
to be that, because you want to discover something important.?? But this
ain't it.
Why does it bug you that I said that? This is what it took for you to
come out of the woodwork and respond?
I told you once before that I never bluff. The simple fact is that
this is one of the most important questions in the JFK Research
community for the last 37 years.
I said nothing about it bugging me, or you bluffing.  It is ridiculous
that you call some unsupported notion in your head the most important
question in 37 years.  It says more about your ego than anything else.
Post by GKnoll
I say that fragment proves that there was a back skip on the recorder
right before the "hold" crosstalk. You do not think that is important?
It proves that the NRC Panel was wrong when they said there was no
evidence of a skip on the the Dictabelt.
This hypothetical idea you have, even if true, would not invalidate the
fact that "hold everything secure..." and the grassy knoll shot exist at
the same point on the recording.  Sorry.
Post by GKnoll
I don't want to discover something important. I did not say I
discovered this. Steve is the one who discovered the three fragments.
I just located it And once you find it, it becomes clear there is a
skip on the tape. I think what is really going on with you, is you are
a little jealous. Why else would you say something like that.
What's going on with me is that I see someone who's very full of
himself, flooding this newsgroup with misinformation about a topic which
most readers won't have the background to know is wrong.  So there needs
to be a voice speaking up once in a while to remind them.
Maybe so, but you are not that voice. I am that voice. I am telling you
that you are wrong and I am showing that you are wrong.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
You want me to explain something about it, but I cannot fathom why you
should be expecting that.?? It's a point about which I've devoted about 0
hours of my time to, ever.?? It isn't something that ever mattered.
Well it should have mattered. You have a very good talent of writing
words and actually saying nothing.
You have a very good talent of reading words and missing what they say.
Only with you because as I say, you have a very good talent at writing
words and saying nothing.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Steve gave you an honest answer that he didn't remember exactly what he
said many years ago.?? I don't remember much of what I said last year.
Let Steve talk for himself. Only Steve knows if he gave an honest
answer or not. I merely pointed out that he had no trouble remembering
he published it in the TCI but could not remember if he told the DOJ,
FBI or Ramsey Panel.
Steve did talk for himself.  Now I'm talking, trying to explain a little
common sense to you.
No, you are trying to make an excuse for him.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Without referring to emails or other documents, most of us might not
remember every detail.?? But he didn't tell you no.?? The fact is, if
it had
come up he probably did tell them then, but it may not have.?? Once again,
So now you are trying to make an excuse for him? As I said before, let
Steve talk for himself.
Post by odellm
because it isn't significant.
How do you know its not significant? You just told me you know nothing
about them. You never studied them. I am telling you it is
significant, extremely significant.
And you are wrong.
You are not qualified to answer this question.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Finally, no, you have not shown that those crosstalk fragments prove there
was a skip on the Dictabelt.?? You have posted an unsupported assertion,
that's all.?? If you have an argument to make, make it.?? Make it
completely.?? Do the analysis, show your work.?? This habit of posting
fragmentary thoughts for people to jump at is silly.?? I won't be playing
that.?? I've advised Steve he shouldn't either, but of course that's up to
him.
I showed where exactly to look for the "try to determine" fragment on
the recording. I showed you exactly. Something Steve would not do. Now
I think you are plenty capable of finding it on the tape yourself. Why
don't you do that. I am not going to do all the work for you.
That's not how it works.  If you have something to prove stop posting
junk to the newsgroup and go write up a thorough study to show it.  Show
us that. Then, maybe, you'll have something worth talking about.
I am showing you what I want to show you. I have learned what I need to
know about you and Steve.
Audio clips where you just add some captions isn't good enough, and
nobody is going to go off and do it for you.
When I talk to you I feel like I am talking to a teenager.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have a question for you. Why is it that you won't go into an open
forum where there is no waiting at all? Why not Duncan McRae's forum?
There is no waiting around, we can post images right away, as well as
links, and so forth. Is there some reason you refuse to go to an open
forum?
Why should I go to any other forum? Are you going to answer the
questions that you are avoiding to answer over in those forums? Of
course you will not.
I am reminding you that you are stonewalling on answering one of the
most important questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years.
That question is, where exactly do you hear the "try to determine" cross
talk fragment on Channel 1?
I have told the Newsgroup where I hear it. I am waiting for you and
Micahel O'Dell to tell the newsgroup where you hear it. Both of you have
an obligation to do that.
You are a public figure who injected himself into the acoustic debate 37
years ago. By your own admission, back in 1981, during the time the Ramsey
Panel was in session, you told people that you hear 3 other cross talk
fragments which come before the "hold" cross talk fragment. When you were
asked if you told the Ramsey Panel about this, you said you do not
remember.
Now, 37 years later, it comes to light that those cross talk fragments
prove that there was a skip on the Dictabelt, and you still remain silent.
So, again, why should I go anywhere else to ask you anything?
I'm going to jump in here, somewhat against my better judgement, but what
the hell. I'll respond here and the other thread. Beyond that is
doubtful.
You are off in la la land. This trivia question you have, "where exactly
do you hear the "try to determine" cross talk fragment on Channel 1?", is
just that. Trivia. It is very very far from "one of the most important
questions for the JFK Research Community in 37 years." I know you want it
to be that, because you want to discover something important. But this
ain't it.
You want me to explain something about it, but I cannot fathom why you
should be expecting that. It's a point about which I've devoted about 0
hours of my time to, ever. It isn't something that ever mattered.
Steve gave you an honest answer that he didn't remember exactly what he
said many years ago. I don't remember much of what I said last year.
No problem when you're just ordering a pizza. But when it's a major
homicide investigation it's a big deal whether you told the police that
the killer was black or whether you told the police that the killer was
white.
Post by odellm
Without referring to emails or other documents, most of us might not
remember every detail. But he didn't tell you no. The fact is, if it had
come up he probably did tell them then, but it may not have. Once again,
because it isn't significant.
Finally, no, you have not shown that those crosstalk fragments prove there
was a skip on the Dictabelt. You have posted an unsupported assertion,
that's all. If you have an argument to make, make it. Make it
completely. Do the analysis, show your work. This habit of posting
fragmentary thoughts for people to jump at is silly. I won't be playing
that. I've advised Steve he shouldn't either, but of course that's up to
him.
Michael
I suspect he has to do that because you guys never answer questions.
Ace Kefford
2018-08-10 15:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I have my own proposal: Fridays should be business casual. Do I hear a
second?
Ace Kefford
2018-08-15 00:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
I am proposing a new rule.
Here it is...
When the moderator wants to make a reply or create a new thread, he has
to put post into the same queue that we members have to put our posts
into. If he does this, then he will have to wait in line like everyone
else before his post is published. He will experience the lag time. If
he wants to have his post published to the NG, then he will have to
clear the queue until his post gets to the front of the queue.
Now lets see if he will agree to this new rule.
I move that the proposal be sent to a select special subcommittee
(emphasis on the sub) for further study and recommendations. The members
of the select committee will be determined based on the number of posts in
the last year using a weighted "Goldilocks" system under which those with
too many posts will be rejected, as will those with too few, with the
committee composed of those whose quantity of posts are neither too big
nor too small but just right.

Do I hear a second?
Loading...