50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

[QUOTE=ExileOnDaytonStreet;5818319]Well, Agnes, here are a few thoughts:

- 61% (even if that seems like a lot of people buying into a conspiracy of some sort) is hardly a consensus, so this thread was doomed to be hyperbolic bull**** right from the start. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/ma...onspiracy.aspx

- It'd be kind of weird if in 38 years we (well... those of us who will still be alive in 38 years) were remembering 9-11 by *****ing about truthers instead of sharing our experiences with one of our nation's most notable tragedies and talking about how it's changed the world around us.

- As for an alternative: Even if it came from someone who couldn't care less about a member of the Kennedy family, I think it would be far more interesting to hear what someone who was alive then has to say about how the world was changed following that day, or how it impacted the state of political discourse in a time that eventually found us entrenched in a myriad of major issues (Vietnam, civil rights, the Cold War, etc.).[/QUOT



You know, I thought about responding but really, you're just an anal aperture. If you had actually read my posts instead of shooting off your mouth reflexively, ignorantly and stupidly you would have noticed my recollections about a moving ceremony when all of the ROTC cadets at Illinois participated in a ceremony honoring the dead president. But since it's me and you're you, that wasn't good enough. So this great honoring of JFK, in your mind, comes down to a typical ******* attack on me? I'm sure Jack would have appreciated it. Go pound sand.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

My first comment wasn't intended to be an attack explicitly on you (believe it or not), just a comment on how this was the only topic of discussion relating to the assassination. But, naturally, since you saw a post from someone you don't like, you immediately whipped out the women's names and the "nouns" in quotation marks and got defensive when I responded. In other news, the sky is blue.

To note:

You spent more words trying to tell me to pound sand than you did on the ROTC anecdote.

I also counted one brief paragraph talking about how people started using TV to get their information on breaking news.

The rest of your 3 dozen plus posts (many of them quite lengthy) are to complain about the various conspiracy theories, which is the direction the thread took from the first post. While it's only fair to note that you've certainly been goaded along with the conspiracy/Lee Harvey Oswald stuff, I'll argue that your "great honoring of JFK" is at best tangential to what you really came here to talk about.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

For anyone curious, here's how the three news networks responded to the story as it broke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Uf50Bd86RHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nzYvsaieR4g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bzjio2HQFZQ

It is quite intriguing to see how the newsrooms tried to get information live on the air. Compared to today when you see this sort of stuff on CNN, MSNBC or Fox, you really do get the idea that they are simply trying to get more information. It's a lot less frantic than what we would see today. The tone of a newsman's voice (both in terms of how it sounds and how calmly they deliver what they know) back then really was different.

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

My first comment wasn't intended to be an attack explicitly on you (believe it or not), just a comment on how this was the only topic of discussion relating to the assassination. But, naturally, since you saw a post from someone you don't like, you immediately whipped out the women's names and the "nouns" in quotation marks and got defensive when I responded. In other news, the sky is blue.

To note:

You spent more words trying to tell me to pound sand than you did on the ROTC anecdote.

I also counted one brief paragraph talking about how people started using TV to get their information on breaking news.

The rest of your 3 dozen plus posts (many of them quite lengthy) are to complain about the various conspiracy theories, which is the direction the thread took from the first post. While it's only fair to note that you've certainly been goaded along with the conspiracy/Lee Harvey Oswald stuff, I'll argue that your "great honoring of JFK" is at best tangential to what you really came here to talk about.

So what? You don't care for a discussion of the "conspiracies" surrounding the death of JFK. And wish for a different discussion? Then start a different farking thread. Why is it necessary to criticize those of us who don't have the precisely calibrated historical sense of what an awful day that was? Who don't meet your exacting standards? I should think counting up the words in posts would rank fairly high on the "obsessive ******* scale." And you couldn't convince your own mother that your first post wasn't substantially (if not entirely) a shot at me. Why even bother with that obvious prevarication?

How amazingly insightful of you to ascertain the direction the thread was going to go, given the title. It was not intended to be a thread "honoring" JFK. In my own case, I stuck to the subject of the various theories surrounding his death and avoided politics and his personal life. While his death was an enormous event (for the country and in my own life) it was, as so frequently is the case, a good career move in terms of how millions of us regard his presidency.

Don't flatter yourself, you aren't important enough for me not to like. But let's note for the record a substantial part of your "honoring the memory of JFK" consists of busting my b*lls. So when you're reliving frame 313 of the Zapruder film over and over again, you can tell yourself how you called me out? Wrapped just a teensy bit tight, aren't we?