Which is precisely what everybody does at every JFK forum that has ever existed, and you surely know it.
Everybody picks & chooses "select words and Kennedy arguments" from "wider conversations" that they wish to respond to (i.e., "in accordance with what [the forum member likes]").
Has there ever been a member of a forum (any forum) that hasn't done precisely that?
Yes, there are members here who select very carefully what they respond to, but not all of them. And the fact that two people having a conversation sometimes do not fully answer the other person's question is a completely other matter than you selecting the words of the other and posting it, out of context, in a blog where the other has no possibility of reply.
And if your response to this is going to be....
But most of those forum members don't then copy their discussions to their own blog.
....I'd then remind you that I have always made a great effort to make links available on all of my webpages that point directly back to the original and complete forum discussion(s) (if such original links are still available online).
Which of course is a cheap excuse as the main reason you give for storing information in your own blog is to safeguard against disappearance.
Your words;
"Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? "So, you're quite happy to risk that the original conversations you post a link to "vanish into nothingness" as long as what you want people to take away from your own blog remains.
It's my opinion that the above comment by Martin Weidmann is 100% B.S.!
"Completely untrue version..." ??
Such slander should not be permitted at this forum. The above three words are utterly ridiculous and outrageous....and, of course, totally false.
When you edit the words of somebody else and leave out, sometimes vital parts, what you don't like, you do indeed create a completely untrue version of the conversation. Case in point; when I confronted you with the logic of the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline as apparent from the circumstantial evidence you not only bailed out of the conversation but completely and purposely omitted that entire argument from your blog, thus presenting a completely untrue version of the actual conversation.
I was treated to similar B.S. about "distortion" and "misrepresentation" at the EF forum too. The moderator/owner of that forum (James R. Gordon) was even silly enough to utter the following absurdities:
JAMES R. GORDON -- "It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context. .... In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum."
DAVID V.P. -- "I strongly resent such a charge. Furthermore, it's a really stupid charge in the first place. Since I am merely taking verbatim quotes from the EF forum over to my own site, Gordon must actually think I'm some sort of Houdini or David Copperfield, in that I am apparently able to take those verbatim CTer quotes and (somehow) change the entire belief structure of the conspiracy theorist being quoted. Even though, keep in mind, the quotes are the EXACT VERBATIM WORDS that were written by the CTer at the EF forum before I copied them to another Internet location. I guess I'm more powerful than I thought! Unbelievable! In other words --- James R. Gordon is full of s**t. It appears to me as if he has been significantly influenced by the other conspiracy theorists at the EF forum who also contend that I have taken things "out of context" and have literally "changed" what CTers have posted at the EF forum. But regardless of which CTer utters such garbage, it's still going to be garbage (and a lie)."
JAMES R. GORDON -- "DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website."
DAVID V.P. -- "More lies. .... Plus, Gordon should re-read this comment I aimed at him earlier today at the EF forum ---- "With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on...I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum." -- DVP ---- And the bunk about me having "two opinions" on various JFK matters is just...well...bizarre (to say the least). Where on this Earth did Gordon get the idea that my basic "opinions" about any aspect of the JFK murder case somehow change between the time I post my thoughts at The Education Forum and when I re-post those EXACT SAME VERBATIM COMMENTS at my website? The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....WTF?"
Sorry, not interested in any conversation you may have had on another forum, because it is painfully obvious that I can not rely on it being a complete and/or accurate representation of what was really said.
Just one comment; I'm clearly not the only one who has accused you of this kind of dishonesty. Just how many people need to complain about before you stop misrepresenting the words of others?
