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

[Peter Goth]

After having thought about your Olive Garden example for a few more minutes....I'd say:

The radio station was definitely wrong to fire me for merely expressing my opinion about the bad experience I had at the OG restaurant. It's not a valid reason for firing a disc jockey (IMO). Not nearly valid enough. Again----it's Free Speech. As long as I didn't get TOO severe in my OG criticism (such as threatening to kill the lousy waitress or blow up the building), I'd say that my on-air criticism of the Olive Garden Restaurant located at 10206 North Michigan Road in Carmel, Indiana, would not be enough of a reason to fire me from the radio station (where I had been employed since 1971, btw).

Do you think my negative comments about a restaurant were the FIRST TIME in the radio station's history that an on-air personality went "off script" and said something of a "Negative" nature about a restaurant or another person or a Government or an automobile manufacturer or anything else? Come now, my good man. Let's get real.

Tomorrow (if I'm re-hired at the station), I'm going to bash O.J. Simpson, because I think he was a murderer. Will I be fired for a second time for expressing another of my opinions?

 

Here we go out of context
you turned bashing into merely expressing an opinion  - not what I'm talking about
we are talking about  bashing, what did you say about the EF moderator? -

[David Von Pein]

Here we go out of context you turned bashing into expressing an opinion

Huh? They ARE the same thing. The BASHING is the OPINION.

You need sleep I think.

we are talking about bashing, what did you say about the EF moderator? -

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html

[Peter Goth]

Huh? They ARE the same thing. The BASHING is the OPINION.

You need sleep I think.


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html

not really, if you call the moderator incompetent and that you have proved it?
would the moderator here allow that from a member to another platform? -

I wouldn't allow you to come back.

[David Von Pein]

would the moderator here allow that from a member to another platform? -

If that moderator believes in Free Speech, yes, of course he would allow it.

I wouldn't allow you to come back.

Then you're not a very good (or fair) moderator.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Hi Michael,

The simple answer (which I still think is the best one) regarding why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit is....

Because all of the evidence (plus Oswald's very incriminating actions on both November 21 and 22 of 1963) point to that "simple" conclusion.

And I've seen nothing produced by any conspiracy theorist over the years that would make me want to start to believe that ALL of the "Oswald Did It" evidence was phony, fake, or created from whole cloth by the authorities.

And if that evidence WASN'T faked or manufactured, then Lee Oswald is certainly a guilty double-murderer. (Everyone--even CTers--can surely agree with that last statement---right?)

As far as there being anything that gives me pause when it comes to believing in Oswald's sole guilt....

The biggest "mystery" (for me) in the whole JFK case, as I have admitted many times in the past, continues to be the one sub-topic that has had me scratching my head the most---and that is:

Why did so many witnesses at Parkland Hospital in Dallas (and even some witnesses at Bethesda) truly believe there was a large wound in the occipital area of JFK's head? It's rather inexplicable to me that many different medical professionals could say they saw something which the autopsy photographs and X-rays prove was simply NOT THERE at the back of President Kennedy's head.

But when assessing this "Back Of The Head" controversy, we must seek and find the BEST evidence to try and explain the contradictions....wouldn't everyone agree?

And, in my opinion, the photos and X-rays of the deceased President, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63 (which are pictures and X-rays that "had not been altered in any manner", per Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7), certainly would (and should, IMO) qualify as the "Best Evidence" when it comes to this topic concerning the important question of Where were the wounds located on JFK's head?

And since I have no better explanation than the one Dr. Michael Baden provided for author Vincent Bugliosi in a telephone call between those two men on January 8, 2000, I will continue to prop up Dr. Baden's explanation as the probable correct one:



[Click the Baden quote above for an Easter Egg link.]

------------------

I know you said you didn't want to be bothered with any of my ubiquitous website links, but I'm going to provide the link to my "BOH" series anyway. It can help to further explore and flesh out my thoughts about the strange "Back Of The Head" matter:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Dr. Baden's explanation as the probable correct one:

Actually, what he says creates reasonable doubt. Why is this reasonable to say? Because for him to he is probably correct could just as easily be invalid. You can not dismiss the fact that between the period of Parkland post-trauma room, and the Bethesda autopsy an illegal act occurred whereby the body of  JFK was forcibly taken against the law. Is this how you make your conclusions. That is quite arrogant for you to pass off information to others that in your eyes is "probably correct". At every turn, you dismiss or excuse everything that does not follow a narrative, that BTW is supposed to be what you need to support allegations. What a place for you to be lazy, it is one thing to have an opinion  but to act like you can dismiss the serious errors shows you  should just gather information stop with your unreasonable opinions and the poor me act

[Peter Goth]

If that moderator believes in Free Speech, yes, of course he would allow it.

Then you're not a very good (or fair) moderator.

You compromised the platform you speak on.
you did it to yourself.

[David Von Pein]

You compromised the platform you speak on.
you did it to yourself.

That's nonsense.

[Steve Howsley]

You hear a tone in that?
- it seems stance changes around here, pretty quickly.
I'm just trying to find what I'm missing..perhaps you can tell me.
How about this... David too...

If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks.
One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.

Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air?

  In that scenario you'd be working for me.