J.f.k Assasination

[sharedholder]

When the truth comes out?'cause i'm really bored to hear bulshit.

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by sharedholder@16 June 2003 - 07:34
When the truth comes out?'cause i'm really bored to hear bulshit.
But does anyone actually know the whole truth?

Or are the people who knew the truth now dead?

[j2k4]

This thread needs one of those "magic" bullets. <_<

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2003 - 14:54
This thread needs one of those "magic" bullets. <_<
Would that be one of the ones where half (im sure its more, someone please tell me&#33;) of the Kennedy&#39;s have fallen under?
Or sorry, it was a plane crash, right?

[clocker]

CBB,
How interested can you be in a subject that you clearly know nothing about?
Just curious.

[Barbarossa]

It&#39;s 40 years since JFK and still people wonder about the truth..

I wonder if we&#39;ll still be wondering about the "truth" of Saddams WMD&#39;s in 2043...

:lol:

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by clocker@16 June 2003 - 15:09
CBB,
How interested can you be in a subject that you clearly know nothing about?
Just curious.
not very interested


I would, however, like to know more without having to have people being rude to me.

That seems to be hard on this board, though....
Oh well....

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by barbarossa@16 June 2003 - 15:17
It's 40 years since JFK and still people wonder about the truth..

I wonder if we'll still be wondering about the "truth" of Saddams WMD's in 2043...

:lol:
:lol: :lol:

Well who knows the entire truth then ?!

[TheDave]

Originally posted by clocker@16 June 2003 - 15:09
CBB,
How interested can you be in a subject that you clearly know nothing about?
Just curious.
ok clocker enlighten us with your encyclopeadic unfaultering mind :rolleyes:

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by TheDave+16 June 2003 - 15:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheDave &#064; 16 June 2003 - 15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@16 June 2003 - 15:09
CBB,
How interested can you be in a subject that you clearly know nothing about?
Just curious.
ok clocker enlighten us with your encyclopeadic unfaultering mind :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Yep i agree.

I apologise on dave&#39;s behalf if he made any spelling mistakes, as im not sure if he did.

*EDIT* - I hope dave doesnt mind. Sorry&#33; :rolleyes:

[TheDave]

its good going if i didnt, but you immedietly get put down in here for having an oppinion. its annoying especially if its more valid than theirs. (if that makes sense)

[clocker]

He did.
Apology accepted.

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by TheDave@16 June 2003 - 15:33
its good going if i didnt, but you immedietly get put down in here for having an oppinion. its annoying especially if its more valid than theirs. (if that makes sense)
:lol:
yeah mate, its laughable.

thanks for accepting my apology clocker.

Are you by any chance going to apologise for being rude to me (i am referring to the previous 2 occasions also where you have not apologised)?

Looks like we arnt finding out more about JFK in here.....

Dont worry clocker, ill find it myself on google, eh? ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats@16 June 2003 - 09:41


Dont worry clocker, ill find it myself on google, eh? ;)
That would give you something to bring to the table, yes.

[crazy_billy_bats]

Its quite funny you still havnt apologised....

And i distinctly remember you posting "i was rude" in a thread were you were blatantly, just that to me.

Do you not think, as a perfectly sane person im sure, that it is the right, and nice, thing to do to apologise to me?

I find it ridiculous that you havnt as of yet.

[J'Pol]

It always amuses me to watch people hunt in packs. Trite clichéd responses are another personal favourite. As is righteous indignation.

[crazy_billy_bats]

:lol:
oh this amuses me more than you will ever know


Still waiting for a perfectly obvious apology that is needed.......

[J'Pol]

I thought it had been established that Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.F.K. Has some doubt now been expressed in relation to this matter.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 09:57
I thought it had been established that Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.F.K. Has some doubt now been expressed in relation to this matter.
It was declared by the Warren Commission that Oswald, acting alone, was solely resposible for the assassination.
There has been naught but doubt about this conclusion ever since.
Compelling arguments for several conflicting theories abound.
I think that it&#39;s unlikely that a satisfactory explanation will ever come to light.

[J'Pol]

What was the legal status of the Warren Commission.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 10:57
I thought it had been established that Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.F.K. Has some doubt now been expressed in relation to this matter.
That was the conclusion of the Warren Commission, yes.

I must note, here, that the Kennedy assassination was the genesis for the modern school of "Conspiracy Theory" thought.

The peculiarities of the incident do lend themselves to conflicting theories; as yet, however, none have proven conclusive.

Note, I said conspiracy theory as opposed to conspiracy.

[TheDave]

Note, I said conspiracy theory as opposed to conspiracy.

what does that mean?

[J'Pol]

It refers to the difference between the actual and the theoretical.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 10:05
What was the legal status of the Warren Commission.
The Commission was convened by authority of then President Lyndon Johnson and it&#39;s conclusions are the de facto official US government explanation.
Many people have made a career of analyzing and debunking the commission&#39;s findings and even supporters admit that there are lots of inconsistencies and omissions.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+16 June 2003 - 17:21--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 16 June 2003 - 17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 June 2003 - 10:05
What was the legal status of the Warren Commission.
The Commission was convened by authority of then President Lyndon Johnson and it&#39;s conclusions are the de facto official US government explanation.
Many people have made a career of analyzing and debunking the commission&#39;s findings and even supporters admit that there are lots of inconsistencies and omissions. [/b][/quote]
In essence, legally LHO assasinated JFK. No-one else was involved and there was no conspiracy.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:10
It refers to the difference between the actual and the theoretical.
Thank you, JPaul.

The Warren Commission was pretty official and authoritative:


Immediate Release
November 30, 1963
Office of the White House Press Secretary
The Wite House Executive Order No. 11130
Appointing A Commission To Report Upon The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination. The Commission shall consist of:

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chairman;
Senator Richard B. Russell;
Senator John Sherman Cooper;
Congressman Hale Boggs;
Congressman Gerald R. Ford;
The Honorable Allen W. Dulles;
The Honorable John J. McCloy.

The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by federal or state authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and conclusions.

The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to employ such assistants as it deems necessary.
Necessary expenses of the Commission may be paid from the "Emergency Fund for the President". All Executive departments and agencies are directed to furnish the Commission with such facilities, services and cooperation as it may request from time to time.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 29, 1963




This is textbook conspiracy theorist stuff. :D

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 June 2003 - 17:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 16 June 2003 - 17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:10
It refers to the difference between the actual and the theoretical.
Thank you, JPaul.

[/b][/quote]
I hope you don&#39;t mind.The question appeared facetious so I thought a level headed individual like myself was best answering it.

Save the thread falling into an ever decreasing spiral of nonsensical demands for insincere expressions of contrition.

[J'Pol]

I&#39;ve always felt, as have others in my position, that every person researching a conspiracy theory is someone kept out of harms way.

Heaven forbid they should ever expend that amount of energy on investigating what is actually going on.

That&#39;s probably why they are started.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:40
I&#39;ve always felt, as have others in my position, that every person researching a conspiracy theory is someone kept out of harms way.

Heaven forbid they should ever expend that amount of energy on investigating what is actually going on.

That&#39;s probably why they are started.
Exactly so, JPaul, although I must say, I don&#39;t think anyone has ever actually occupied your "precise" position. :lol:

[angellynn26]

To accept that LHO acted alone to assassinate JFK out of some personal vendetta of his own making is absolutely absurd. If any of you actually believe that, I&#39;ve got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell ya&#33; There were three shots fired, and it HAS been proven that all three could NOT have come from the book depository window that LHO was at. As for the stupid Warren Commission statement, look who signed it. It has been openly speculated that LBJ, the CIA, and the Secret Service were all involved in JFK&#39;s assassination. If there is even a scrap of truth to that, then the statement from the commission, signed by LBJ, holds no water whatsoever. Let us also not forget the fact that the forensic examination of JFK&#39;s body was kept from the public for approx. 30 years. When the American public was given access to the autopsy results, actual PROOF was shown that there was no way LHO acted as the sole shooter. There were at least two other shooters on the grassy knoll... that is no longer considered speculation. Many witnesses on that day also claimed to hear the two shots that came from behind the fence. The U.S. government has put a hold on all information concerning JFK&#39;s death. It is to be kept classified until - and I might be wrong about the specific time - around the year 2030. I have always believed this was because they wanted to make sure that all persons involved were dead before allowing the public to know the truth. Why else would they tell us there is more to the story, but it is classified? I can&#39;t blame all those people who have spent their lives trying to put this puzzle together. Anyone who has read enough on the subject would find it hard not to speculate also. And, it may be where "conspiracy theory" got it&#39;s start, but it is probably the one incident in our country&#39;s history that merits the question: what are they hiding and why?


*edit*
If any of you would like a REAL possibility for his assassination, look up some information on what Martin Luther King Jr. and Kennedy were doing before he was killed. Then look at what LBJ did after the assassination to thwart the efforts of MLKjr. Make sure you also look at the head of the CIA at the time, and his reports to Congress and the president about the "real" abilities and motivations of African-Americans in this country. It is no secret that MLKjr. was working JFK for support for the fight against racial segregation in this country... and JFK was giving him that support. It is also no secret that the CIA paid a black man to assassinate MLKjr. That is not a conspiracy theory, the CIA has readily admitted as much. Should it be only speculation that MLKjr. being assassinated shortly after JFK is just a coincidence? Any of you who understand the SEVERE racial issues that were going on during that time will also understand that this is a very real possibility for the reason JFK was killed.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 June 2003 - 17:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 June 2003 - 17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:40
I&#39;ve always felt, as have others in my position, that every person researching a conspiracy theory is someone kept out of harms way.

Heaven forbid they should ever expend that amount of energy on investigating what is actually going on.

That&#39;s probably why they are started.
Exactly so, JPaul, although I must say, I don&#39;t think anyone has ever actually occupied your "precise" position. :lol: [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s a very good point, even if unintentional. I should probably have said similar positions.

[clocker]

Oh, I would hardly think that&#39;s the only question that merits such attention.
I didn&#39;t mean to imply that I accepted the Warren Commission&#39;s report at all.
I&#39;ve read several books on the subject and think that barring the appearance of Mr. Peabody and the Wayback machine, a definitive answer is not likely to be uncovered.

[j2k4]

Angellynn 26-

One difficulty is some diabolical person made sure all possible participants in the "conspiracy" died of old age before they could give up the true dope.

Another is this:

Everyone involved in a "conspiracy" has, as his impetus, an agenda-driven imperative, which effectively precludes coherent testimony, post-event.

Thousands (well, maybe only hundreds) of varying stories; and with them, a good recipe for stew, which is what we&#39;ve been doing for the past forty years.

[fugley]

Yeah sure but what about UFO&#39;s then? :ph34r:

[TheDave]

Originally posted by JPaul+16 June 2003 - 16:37--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 16 June 2003 - 16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2003 - 17:25
<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:10
It refers to the difference between the actual and the theoretical.
Thank you, JPaul.


I hope you don&#39;t mind.The question appeared facetious so I thought a level headed individual like myself was best answering it.

Save the thread falling into an ever decreasing spiral of nonsensical demands for insincere expressions of contrition. [/b][/quote]
it wasnt facetious. i was just saying. i didnt realise there was much different cos how often does something go from being a conspiracy theory to a conspiracy if you know what i mean

[DanB]

Originally posted by angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 18:04
To accept that LHO acted alone to assassinate JFK out of some personal vendetta of his own making is absolutely absurd. If any of you actually believe that, I&#39;ve got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell ya&#33; There were three shots fired, and it HAS been proven that all three could NOT have come from the book depository window that LHO was at. As for the stupid Warren Commission statement, look who signed it. It has been openly speculated that LBJ, the CIA, and the Secret Service were all involved in JFK&#39;s assassination. If there is even a scrap of truth to that, then the statement from the commission, signed by LBJ, holds no water whatsoever. Let us also not forget the fact that the forensic examination of JFK&#39;s body was kept from the public for approx. 30 years. When the American public was given access to the autopsy results, actual PROOF was shown that there was no way LHO acted as the sole shooter. There were at least two other shooters on the grassy knoll... that is no longer considered speculation. Many witnesses on that day also claimed to hear the two shots that came from behind the fence. The U.S. government has put a hold on all information concerning JFK&#39;s death. It is to be kept classified until - and I might be wrong about the specific time - around the year 2030. I have always believed this was because they wanted to make sure that all persons involved were dead before allowing the public to know the truth. Why else would they tell us there is more to the story, but it is classified? I can&#39;t blame all those people who have spent their lives trying to put this puzzle together. Anyone who has read enough on the subject would find it hard not to speculate also. And, it may be where "conspiracy theory" got it&#39;s start, but it is probably the one incident in our country&#39;s history that merits the question: what are they hiding and why?
Very true&#33; i couldnt have put it better myself :lol:

[angellynn26]

Originally posted by angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 17:04
*edit*
If any of you would like a REAL possibility for his assassination, look up some information on what Martin Luther King Jr. and Kennedy were doing before he was killed. Then look at what LBJ did after the assassination to thwart the efforts of MLKjr. Make sure you also look at the head of the CIA at the time, and his reports to Congress and the president about the "real" abilities and motivations of African-Americans in this country. It is no secret that MLKjr. was working JFK for support for the fight against racial segregation in this country... and JFK was giving him that support. It is also no secret that the CIA paid a black man to assassinate MLKjr. That is not a conspiracy theory, the CIA has readily admitted as much. Should it be only speculation that MLKjr. being assassinated shortly after JFK is just a coincidence? Any of you who understand the SEVERE racial issues that were going on during that time will also understand that this is a very real possibility for the reason JFK was killed.
:)

[J'Pol]

I think that the way JFK led his life and the manner of his death it was inevitable that this would happen.

It&#39;s one of these situations where it is easier to get groups of people to believe things which they fundamentally want to believe in the first place. It is in fact a true life story as entertaining as any X-Files plot.

I personally believe that the JFK conspiracy theory was in fact a conspiracy. I believe that the conspiracy theory was put in place to make the US citizens so engrossed in this that they ignored other things which were happening.

Whatever else may be true JFK was a charismatic man who was loved by many. His untimely death was an opportunity for people to deflect the attention from the real world. The theory only served to extend that period. Flippin heck it is still going on.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by angellynn26+16 June 2003 - 12:39--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (angellynn26 @ 16 June 2003 - 12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 17:04
*edit*
If any of you would like a REAL possibility for his assassination, look up some information on what Martin Luther King Jr. and Kennedy were doing before he was killed.&nbsp; Then look at what LBJ did after the assassination to thwart the efforts of MLKjr.&nbsp; Make sure you also look at the head of the CIA at the time, and his reports to Congress and the president about the "real" abilities and motivations of African-Americans in this country.&nbsp; It is no secret that MLKjr. was working JFK for support for the fight against racial segregation in this country... and JFK was giving him that support.&nbsp; It is also no secret that the CIA paid a black man to assassinate MLKjr.&nbsp; That is not a conspiracy theory, the CIA has readily admitted as much.&nbsp; Should it be only speculation that MLKjr. being assassinated shortly after JFK is just a coincidence?&nbsp; Any of you who understand the SEVERE racial issues that were going on during that time will also understand that this is a very real possibility for the reason JFK was killed.
:) [/b][/quote]
And awaaaaaay we go&#33;

The train and track thus part company, heading for yet another artificial horizon....... :lol:

[angellynn26]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 17:41
I think that the way JFK led his life and the manner of his death it was inevitable that this would happen.

It&#39;s one of these situations where it is easier to get groups of people to believe things which they fundamentally want to believe in the first place. It is in fact a true life story as entertaining as any X-Files plot.

I personally believe that the JFK conspiracy theory was in fact a conspiracy. I believe that the conspiracy theory was put in place to make the US citizens so engrossed in this that they ignored other things which were happening.

Whatever else may be true JFK was a charismatic man who was loved by many. His untimely death was an opportunity for people to deflect the attention from the real world. The theory only served to extend that period. Flippin heck it is still going on.
I agree... esp. about the &#39;still going on&#39; part. It won&#39;t end until the gov&#39;t releases the whole truth to the public. Until that time, people are going to speculate about what really happened. I&#39;ve heard people point at the Vietnam War as a reason, and I&#39;ve also heard people point at labor relations and union situations at the time as a reason. The best explanation, which is the one I posted previously, is one that I came up with. Not many people have publicly came out and said it might have something to do with segregation, but it is the one thing that carried enough hatred and malice at the time as to warrant JFK&#39;s assassination. The passion and ferver in which white Americans fought segregation with would have been plenty of motivation.

[angellynn26]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2003 - 17:46
And awaaaaaay we go&#33;

The train and track thus part company, heading for yet another artificial horizon....... :lol:
hey... I said possibility, not fact hun. Don&#39;t read into this what isn&#39;t there.

[clocker]

Originally posted by angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 11:47
The best explanation, which is the one I posted previously, is one that I came up with.
I suppose that, in the event that it satisfies you, you can call it the "best explanation".
Doesn&#39;t do much for me, however.

[J'Pol]

Doesn&#39;t the US have a 30 year rule with regard to the release of all papers.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 12:47
It won&#39;t end until the gov&#39;t releases the whole truth to the public.
I think we can bank on any "information" the government still holds being totally corrupted.

The whole incident was treated so as to recede into "speculative" history as quickly as possible.

Soon, the only references to it will be found in the same file wherein resides "The TRUE Story of Easter Island". ;)

[angellynn26]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 17:54
Doesn&#39;t the US have a 30 year rule with regard to the release of all papers.
I&#39;ve never heard anything like that. However, I do know that by claiming it as a matter of National Security, they can hold any information from the public for as long as they want.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by angellynn26+16 June 2003 - 12:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (angellynn26 @ 16 June 2003 - 12:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 June 2003 - 17:54
Doesn&#39;t the US have a 30 year rule with regard to the release of all papers.
I&#39;ve never heard anything like that. However, I do know that by claiming it as a matter of National Security, they can hold any information from the public for as long as they want. [/b][/quote]
Both are true; the National Security issue can be challenged under certain circumstances, much as a parole hearing is occasionally opened to relevant parties.

[angellynn26]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 June 2003 - 17:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 16 June 2003 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-angellynn26@16 June 2003 - 12:47
It won&#39;t end until the gov&#39;t releases the whole truth to the public.
I think we can bank on any "information" the government still holds being totally corrupted.

The whole incident was treated so as to recede into "speculative" history as quickly as possible.

Soon, the only references to it will be found in the same file wherein resides "The TRUE Story of Easter Island". ;) [/b][/quote]
I agree, that could be a very real possibility. The problem with anything to do with JFK&#39;s death is that it is mostly speculation. There is some proof that we&#39;ve been given though. There were definitely at least three shooters... that much at the very least IS a fact. There is no room left for doubt that LHO was not the sole shooter, not possible. Other than that, we are not likely to get all of the answers, but one can hope.

Clocker - in response, yes... it does satisfy me. The similarities are just too much for me to ignore. The timing of both assassinations is creepily related, in my opinion. Doesn&#39;t really matter to me who else cares to believe it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:54
Doesn&#39;t the US have a 30 year rule with regard to the release of all papers.
The Freedom of Information Act has been used with various degrees of success to pry tidbets of data from the government.
I think that j2&#39;s point about the deaths of the majority of the primary, secondary and even tertiary players rendering such data unverifiable is sound.

Ironically, should all the various theories be viewed outside the context of history, the one that proposes that LHO was the assassin is easily the most outlandish and outre, thus guaranteeing it&#39;s widespread acceptance by afficiandoes of conspiracy.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@16 June 2003 - 19:11

Ironically, should all the various theories be viewed outside the context of history, the one that proposes that LHO was the assassin is easily the most outlandish and outre, thus guaranteeing it&#39;s widespread acceptance by afficiandoes of conspiracy.
Apply Occums Razor.

[Rat Faced]

Never has there been a case of so much research done by many intelligent people....

And so little is actually known, and probably never will be.


It amazes me sometimes that we know what a 1000 yr old corpse had for breakfast, but dont know all the facts surrounding JFK, watched by half the world with an arrest so quickly.





I think ShockAndAwe did it, or maybe FallenKnight ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@16 June 2003 - 18:17

I&#39;ve read several books on the subject and think that barring the appearance of Mr. Peabody and the Wayback machine, a definitive answer is not likely to be uncovered.
Sherman?
Come on Sherman, you must be 40 years old by now. Mr. Peabody was a special dog, but dogs only live 15 years.
Sorry Sherm, Peabody aint coming back. :( .


It is fact that Kennedy had been dead for three days before his "corpse" was shot in Dallas. All of his apparent movements were controlled by his wife, a master puppeteer.
John had commited suicide with pills 3 days prior and it was decided that this was not an acceptable way for a President to go out.
The whole "assassination" setup was to turn this tradegy into triumph. Nicely done, I might add.


I cannot emphasize enough the importance of spacing to make a post pleasing to the eyes. I don&#39;t read wordbricks, so I have no idea what angellyn said.
Some of the most brilliant posts have never been read because of this lack of attention to detail.


Edit- the above was supposed to come out sounding constructive, actually came out a touch rude- sorry.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 June 2003 - 20:34

Some of the most brilliant posts have never been read because of this lack of attention to detail.


What&#39;s a tradegy ?

[angellynn26]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 June 2003 - 19:34
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of spacing to make a post pleasing to the eyes. I don&#39;t read wordbricks, so I have no idea what angellyn said.
Some of the most brilliant posts have never been read because of this lack of attention to detail.


Edit- the above was supposed to come out sounding constructive, actually came out a touch rude- sorry.
No offense taken. The only thing I failed to do was separate paragraphs, and I tend to do the ... thing. Other than that, there is no fault whatsoever with my grammar practices here. I just don&#39;t see the point in making paragraphs on a forum. This is not a paper I am submitting for a grade, afterall :P It&#39;s really a shame though, I thought it would be a refreshing change to see someone use proper spelling and grammar to make a point here. If it all seems to run together for you, sorry you do not have the patience to actually read something that isn&#39;t given to you in short, two sentence clumps.

[J'Pol]

So people don&#39;t use proper spelling and grammar. How so.

[hobbes]

No offense taken. The only thing I failed to do was separate paragraphs, and I tend to do the ... thing. Other than that, there is no fault whatsoever with my grammar practices here. I just don&#39;t see the point in making paragraphs on a forum. This is not a paper I am submitting for a grade, afterall :P It&#39;s really a shame though, I thought it would be a refreshing change to see someone use proper spelling and grammar to make a point here. If it all seems to run together for you, sorry you do not have the patience to actually read something that isn&#39;t given to you in short, two sentence clumps.
I don&#39;t eat my steak in 1 bite, I separate into smaller, easy to handle pieces.

Why pay attention to detail in regard to grammer and spelling, and the forget about form. Paragraphs weren&#39;t invented arbitrarily, they were designed to give the reader a mental break and demonstrate a transition from one thought to another.

Why would a restaurant create the perfect steak, then serve it to you on a paper plate? People like a little ambience, some eye candy.

When you post a thread, you want to draw the reader in, why not use all the tools at your disposal? Attract them with your beauty and impress them with your mind.

It is not very high road of you to try to turn this into MY problem, after all, I have enough without you adding to the list. :lol:

You seem to be new to this section, you will find that grammar and punctuation are a pre-requiste and words are wielded like weapons. Even bosom buddies will get in a tiff over "input" vs "imput". <_<

[J'Pol]

Only one of which is a word, in English.

If you wish to get really formal the end of one paragraph should flow into the start of the next. As a link or indeed figurative bridge between the two. Making the transition of ideas between the paragraphs flow more naturally for the reader.

But who can be arsed when you are only writing between 50 and 100 words.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by angellynn26+16 June 2003 - 14:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (angellynn26 @ 16 June 2003 - 14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 June 2003 - 19:34
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of spacing to make a post pleasing to the eyes.&nbsp; I don&#39;t read wordbricks, so I have no idea what angellyn said.
Some of the most brilliant posts have never been read because of this lack of attention to detail.


Edit- the above was supposed to come out sounding constructive, actually came out a touch rude- sorry.
No offense taken. The only thing I failed to do was separate paragraphs, and I tend to do the ... thing. Other than that, there is no fault whatsoever with my grammar practices here. I just don&#39;t see the point in making paragraphs on a forum. This is not a paper I am submitting for a grade, afterall :P It&#39;s really a shame though, I thought it would be a refreshing change to see someone use proper spelling and grammar to make a point here. If it all seems to run together for you, sorry you do not have the patience to actually read something that isn&#39;t given to you in short, two sentence clumps. [/b][/quote]
Angellynn-

As you write beautifully otherwise, I would beg you, as Hobbes does: Avoid the word brick-never mind for esthetic reasons, but for ease of reading.

If your words were meant to be read anywhere other than from a CRT, all would be fine, but as we here are detail-oriented, the difficulties of devining the detail buried in a brick bring tears to already-crossed eyes.

Call it an age thing, if you must, but please? ;)

[clocker]

Angellynn..

Please ignore all these crybabies.
I for one, appreciate a good word
brick.They are invaluable for hold-
ing down loose papers and I am
using your last one as a support
for a wobbly table. Keep up the
good work and if you could pro-
duce one about four and three
eighths of an inch high I would be
eternally grateful. Clocker

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@16 June 2003 - 22:56
Angellynn..

Please ignore all these crybabies.
I for one, appreciate a good word
brick.They are invaluable for hold-
ing down loose papers and I am
using your last one as a support
for a wobbly table. Keep up the
good work and if you could pro-
duce one about four and three
eighths of an inch high I would be
eternally grateful. Clocker
Suck-up. <_<

If her word bricks are as soft as her logic your table better not be supporting anything of value, Clocker. ;)

[angellynn26]

No... screw you guys&#33; I will word brick you all to death&#33; HAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33;

lol j/k

I will certainly try to be more accomodating in the future. :P

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 12:40

Apply Occums Razor.
In this case I think that the Warren Commission did just that.

The resulting conclusion has proven to be unsatisfactory.

[fugley]

Originally posted by angellynn26@17 June 2003 - 06:47
No... screw you guys&#33; I will word brick you all to death&#33; HAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33;

lol j/k

I will certainly try to be more accomodating in the future. :P
Better a word brick than a wordy prick&#33; ;)