The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[Colin Crow]

I have many times searched the Wayback Machine to try and find a working "source" link for a thread that has died. And that technique has worked several times (mostly for deleted EF forum threads), but it often does not work and thusly I'm not able to always provide a link to the source conversation. Which, of course, means that in those instances, my webpages are likely the ONLY location on the Web where one can view ANY portion of the original forum discussion, which is kind of a GOOD thing---is it not? I think it is anyway.

Not sure I follow you there. Might need to explain why?

PS Did you routinely post the original forum conversation link for each individual you quoted? I could see on some occasions but was far from the norm.

In any event, if they are no longer available at least a notification that these are selected (and assembled) by you and likely only parts of wider discussions from a number of JFK assassination fora.

Just sayin’.

[David Von Pein]

Not sure I follow you there. Might need to explain why?

Because if it weren't for my archiving of those now-deleted excerpts, nobody could see ANY of it at all because it's been lost into cyberspace.

You think that's bad that at least certain portions of a now-deleted discussion are still available (at my site)?

PS Did you routinely post the original forum conversation link for each individual you quoted? I could see on some occasions but was far from the norm.

I don't normally provide a link to each individual post, no. But many times I do (if I feel it's warranted, mainly due to the long length of a post to which I am only excerpting a small portion). But I always provide a link to the original thread (or threads) where those individual quotes are located (if those links are available). I embed the link(s) inside the date(s) near the bottom of my webpages.

In any event, if they are no longer available at least a notification that these are selected (and assembled) by you and likely only parts of wider discussions from a number of JFK assassination fora.

Just sayin’.

And are there any additional hoops you think I should jump through in order to please the people who think I am a "scumbag" and a "disinformation agent" and "an accessory after the fact to murder"?

I could always bake each CTer a big cake and pretend that I have a huge amount of respect for the vast majority of Internet JFK conspiracy theorists, even though most of those CTers pretty much ignore every single piece of evidence in the JFK case which points to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

After all, we want to make sure all CTers are happy and content, right?

[Michael Clark]

It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his expulsion. Nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise.

That’s just ridiculous. A new guy was shocked to find out what David was doing, and that reinvigorated the debate about the issue. Then you have the fact that members stepped in to support the site recently and the atmosphere is affected by that. Your take on the conspiracy is pretty fun though.

[Colin Crow]

Because if it weren't for my archiving of those now-deleted excerpts, nobody could see ANY of it at all because it's been lost into cyberspace.

You think that's bad that at least certain portions of a now-deleted discussion are still available (at my site)?


I don't normally provide a link to each individual post, no. But many times I do (if I feel it's warranted, mainly due to the long length of a post to which I am only excerpting a small portion). But I always provide a link to the original thread (or threads) where those individual quotes are located (if those links are available). I embed the link(s) inside the date(s) near the bottom of my webpages.


And are there any additional hoops you think I should jump through in order to please the people who think I am a "scumbag" and a "disinformation agent" and "an accessory after the fact to murder"?

I could always bake each CTer a big cake and pretend that I have a huge amount of respect for the vast majority of Internet JFK conspiracy theorists, even though most of those CTers pretty much ignore every single piece of evidence in the JFK case which points to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

After all, we want to make sure all CTers are happy and content, right?

Perhaps you missed these comments.....

Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.

As  someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal".

Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.

From someone who doesn’t think you are a paid scumbag......and you can quote me.

Does that disqualify me as a CT?

[Steve Howsley]

That’s just ridiculous. A new guy was shocked to find out what David was doing, and that reinvigorated the debate about the issue. Then you have the fact that members stepped in to support the site recently and the atmosphere is affected by that. Your take on the conspiracy is pretty fun though.

Of course you will defend the indefensible. That's why you are here. Try as you might but the EF has been seen by all to have crapped in its own nest. I think DVP is better off out of the place and over time the EF will be the big loser.

[David Von Pein]

When Steve Howsley said this....

"It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his [DVP's] expulsion."

....he might have been referring (at least in part) to the absolutely absurd "Forum Rule" that led to this February 2019 discussion (archived at my website, of course), during which I was literally ORDERED by the EF owner to start a new thread at the EF forum and apologize to the forum owner for something I said at a completely DIFFERENT Internet site.

That's how ridiculous the EF Forum "rules" are. And, IMO, that whole bizarre episode was "created" totally by the forum owner. It wasn't created by me. It was an over-reaction by Mr. Gordon. And I think even a lot of CTers would agree with that assessment.

[David Von Pein]

Perhaps you missed these comments.....

Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.

As  someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal".

Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.

From someone who doesn’t think you are a paid scumbag......and you can quote me.

Does that disqualify me as a CT?

No, I didn't miss those comments at all, Colin. I appreciate those kind sentiments. Thank you.

And, no, you're not disqualified as a "CT" (unless you've completely flipped sides and have become an LNer since I last talked with you). But, based on our conversations in the past, you're certainly one of the friendlier CTers I've run across on the Internet. :-)

[Michael Walton]

To Dave VP,

I've always wanted to ask you this. You're obviously a staunch supporter of the official theories and their subsequent conclusions. That Oswald murdered Kennedy all by himself, that all shots were fired by him, that he murdered Tippit all by himself, and that Jack Ruby, also acting alone, went down into the basement and murdered Oswald because he was patriotic and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the turmoil of coming to Dallas and testifying at Oswald's trial.

You don't seem to be a Kennedy hater since you post all manner of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts and such on your site. You've created a nice historical record of Kennedy. Now, I also know that you run ads on that site so I don't know if your motives are truly altruistic.

But anyway, back to that pesky question I wanted to ask you. Do you not find anything - anything at all - in this case that's just a tiny bit odd, that goes just a little bit beyond the pale of it being coincidental? Anything that just seems like it couldn't happen that way because it just seems ever so slightly implausible?

Now, I'm asking you this for an honest discussion and I'm not trying to stir any spombleprofglidnoctobuns with you here. And please don't post all manner of links to your site here. I'd like to hear it from you directly. Because, let's face it, there are plenty of LN crazies out there as well CT crazies. Like many CT crazies do, posting crazy spombleprofglidnoctobuns about Oswald's teeth and math formulas related to the Z film and the Russians did it, there are also LN crazies posting all kinds of crazy animated GIFs and such and often dodging genuine debate.

So I'd like to just hear your thoughts on this, about why you think it's 100% Oswald, all of the time.