jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2008 16:46:43 GMT -5
Kevkon, I greatly respect your opinion, and that's the way it stands. Ever see the Stooges in "The Plumber?" Jack
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2008 16:51:58 GMT -5
Kevkon, I greatly respect your opinion, and that's the way it stands. Ever see the Stooges in "The Plumber?" Jack
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2008 16:53:21 GMT -5
Oops - doubled - similar to the Stooges piping.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 23, 2008 20:45:57 GMT -5
Hi kevin,
Even with your great points I have believed and still lean that there is a high probability of an insider. If it was minor or major contributions I am not sure. I am looking at the circumstances as a whole. If you take one bit of it at a time I could agree a simple good luck snatch likely. The few "as a whole" to me are:
1. The choice of Hopewell the only time they stayed beyond the weekend. Many might say he scoped the location. When would he have done that? Previous weekend nights? How would he know the room to go in ? Yes he may have read Lindbergh was suppose to be at a dinner but how did that mean the family was at Hopewell rather than Englewood? The only reason to believe the baby was still in the house was perhaps seeing Ann looking up at the window with Betty and the baby waving. You would almost have to be there the entire day to be convinced the baby was there. If so why wouldn't Ellerson pulling in the drive meant taking Anne and baby back to Englewood rather than dropping Betty off?
2. Combine the above with lack of evidence in the room.. fingerprints, mud, etc.... I agree. If it was a sloppy job of attaining the prints rather than no prints at all would answer these strange results.
3. Why were the pins still attached to the sheets? None of the toys on the chest moved ? Maybe this means little but hints of movements within the room that are contrary to a quick lets get out. Things are just to neat.
4. The relationship of an insider and the criminal you mention is a good point. If one was caught I think one would crack. Who was caught to make that happen? How do we know the weak link point you made wasn't Violet Sharp? How she reacted during the investigation.
All I am saying is in consideration of ALL these circumstances it is quite reasonable to believe important pre-knowledge of almost everything. Attaining that from a person rather anything else may not be the case but certainly possible. As we read most of the investigators were convinced of it until they had to convict Hauptmann. In my opinion and faulty as it is I believe to successfully prosecute Hauptmann required a discipline to suppress what they truly believed. That was Hauptmann was the man but certainly not alone.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 23, 2008 21:14:17 GMT -5
Hey Gary, good to hear from you. Just to clarify, I am not claiming that there was no insider, just that one is not absolutely necessary. I think it's important to start with what is possible, even if it seems improbable. Also my points regarding an insider are primarily directed toward an active accomplice within the house and not a person simply providing information.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 24, 2008 0:02:12 GMT -5
For Kevin: Do you believe that the intent of the crime was to kill the child? That's the only way "outsider" works because taking the baby unharmed out of the window would make a heck of a racket. Salud' Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2008 6:09:21 GMT -5
Yes and no, Jack What I mean by that is that if the intention was to extort money from Lindbergh by taking his child, then given the risk of such a means of doing so, I think the life of that child was never a consideration. Also, had a plan existed for the safe abduction existed then it follows that a means to safely hold and care for that child would have also existed. To date no such evidence has been found to support this.
And you think the assistance of an "insider" would somehow negate this problem? How so? Is Betty going to sing a lullaby while she passes him out the window? Doubtful. Any insider is going to have to do the same thing as an outsider, silence the kid asap. And is this insider likely to leave the room tidy and close the window? Extremely doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 24, 2008 10:11:29 GMT -5
For Gary--excellent point!
On Court TV last week a woman shot husband in bed, dragged him into a pickup, and dumped him down the road a piece. But when CSI checked the bedroom with Lumenol it lit up like a Xmas tree!
CONCLUSION: Only "insiders" clean and scrub a crime scene to alter the forensic evidence--not any outsiders. The Nursery was Spic and Span with everything in its proper place. Its a "dead giveaway". [You could also add that only "insiders" would dump a body down the road a piece to be found later? Its all part of modifying the crime scene to avoid arrest and prosecution]
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jun 24, 2008 11:00:36 GMT -5
It's too bad investigators didn't have any Hauptmannol spray back then as you would have seen a real nice Tannenbaum afterwards in that nursery..
For my money, the only real issue here is the getting in and out of the window part - off and onto that ladder. What's to disturb in that room for any reasonably fit and adept individual with a flashlight and a preconceived mission? Does anyone with two left feet even entertain the notion of pulling off this crime? This "clean and scrub" business on the part of an insider is really an aberration of the real evidence picture. I'm surprised somebody's wrists haven't been slapped yet for not wetmopping the mud from the floor or failing this, not depositing enough from the insider's deception kit mud bucket.
Bottom line here is that the child was recovering from a cold and I'd be willing to bet attention to his room's tidiness and cleanliness would only have been more pronounced in the days immediatley leading up to March 1, 1932.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 24, 2008 15:18:28 GMT -5
The Nursery "scrubbing" has to be the most bizarre bit of logic employed in this case. What's the point of removing prints that would be expected to be there? Only an "outsider" would find the need to erase his identity and if he was aware of that need, he'd simply wear gloves. The dead giveaway is that an person in that household would have no reason to eradicate prints. You are trying to fit that square peg in the round hole again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2008 16:22:24 GMT -5
But shouldn't we consider that with the thought in mind exactly who the "insider" might be? Of course a criminal mind may think along these lines but would a Nurse Maid, for example, think this way? How about a Butler? What are the odds they over-react or make this type of mistake? Or panic in some way perhaps?
Every crime has its "flaws" which ultimately lead to its solution.
Consider that Ho-age did many Insurance fraud claims and finding they were inside jobs. He was convinced this was among those where someone on the inside assisted in the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Dena Denise on Jun 24, 2008 16:30:55 GMT -5
Gary said: " "All I am saying is in consideration of ALL these circumstances it is quite reasonable to believe important pre-knowledge of almost everything. Attaining that from a person rather anything else may not be the case but certainly possible." " Personally, I do indeed believe there was an insider. But I could be wrong of course. I also believe its possible that there was what I refer to as the "accidental insider". Someone such as a memember of the Morrow staff (who intermingled with the Lindbergh staff of course) who imbibed often & then talked to freely & gave an outsider the inside info they would have needed. Loose lips sank ships, so to speak. Jeez, I have missed you guys on here! I was thinking maybe when I got back you guys would have solved it by now. GRIN Dena
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 25, 2008 6:23:43 GMT -5
Exactamundo! But only if one looks at the result of the flaws without prejudice. Is that going on here? Does the lack of identifiable latents really equate to an insider wiping down the Nursery? Does the evidence really indicate an inside Highfields accomplice or is that conclusion based more on prejudice as a result of a disbelief in a strictly outside operation?
I would agree. The ladder has some odd characteristics, with three sections one can step off it without someone at the base. But two sections require a means to keep the ladder from scissoring. In either case it can work. You would think the way some talk about getting into a second floor window that it's like landing on Mars.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jun 25, 2008 9:47:11 GMT -5
A piece of simple coat hanger wire might well have been used to tie through the top of the ladder's third section and a couple of the right shutter's louvers. Combined with the base of the ladder settled into a couple of inches of soft earth, it would alleviate the need for an extra pair of hands to steady the ladder while climbing off and on again.
|
|
|
Post by fgreenwiscedu on Jun 25, 2008 12:49:56 GMT -5
Does anyone see any possibility in Gustave Manke's and his wife Sophie's account of when they said they saw Whateley, Sharpe, and Fisch together on 3 or 4 occasions at their ice cream store in New Rochelle? Additional links to JFCondon and Mancke's: Page 57 (Gardner--TCTND) Condon lectured at Fordham University and the College of New Rochelle and published a steady stream of patriotic poems and essays under various pseudonyms in the Bronx Home News. Page 72 (Gardner) If CJ had his doubts about Condon--so did Lindbergh. The day after the sleeping suit arrived, CAL had his friend Major Thomas Lanphier check out JFC. Maj. Lanphier went to the FBI, which carried out a cursory check, an interview with an official at Fordham University. This man knew about Condon's interest in civic movements and baseball teams. And something else rather strange " Condon had told him he had had taken a personal interest in the Lindbergh kidnapping"? Page 85 (Gardner) Condon kept to his academic schedule, nevertheless, teaching classes at the College of New Rochelle. He told students in one class that he had recognized the handwriting on the ransom notes of a former pupil because he never crossed his "t's"? Page 90 (Gardner) ...Jafsie had told a class of high school girls at the College of New Rochelle exactly what he was doing — and why. He could hardly wait to return the baby to his mothers arms?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2008 17:39:40 GMT -5
I just don't see any evidence there was any latents found on the window, the window frame, or the sill as we would expect. For me "no prints" means "no prints." It's what Hudson believed too, and he was there, what, 12 days later and directly dealing with both Kelly and Kubler. The assumption is not only that they were wiped down, but by an "insider." I do believe it was wiped down but I am still at a loss as to what it means or by whom. Naturally I suspect Gow or some other novice panicking in some way but honestly its all guess work at this point.
I don't believe the carpenter who built the ladder, or one of them, wore gloves because of the print found in the mortise behind one of the rungs. But I am inclined to believe whatever outsiders existed wore gloves not only because of the crime but due to the weather.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 25, 2008 20:10:48 GMT -5
Vanishing Yods To Vanishing Footprints: A couple things seem evident from the footprints. They seem pretty obvious but I havn't seen them addressed. The perp(s) must have been dropped off at the driveway because of the lack or prints going to the house. They then followed the boardwalk around to the correct window. However the crime went down in the nursery, it seems that it would have ended abruptly with the noise the ladder would have made when it broke. One of the few truisms of the crime has to be that they wouldn't have started out with a busted ladder. Then there are two sets of footprints leading away from the house (Wolf) and, speculating, it's unreasonable to be carrying the baby and three sections of ladder, so on the ground are more logically, one with the baby and one that's carrying the ladder, and the ladder perp is told after 70 feet to ditch the ladder because it would certainly be incriminating. They get into the woods at their pickup spot and the baby (drugs wear off) starts yelling or the police show up or lights change in the house (by the way - did you notice {earlier post - here or LKHC} that where the baby was found is the only spot on that road where you can see the Lindbergh house?) and so the baby has to be ditched as well. There is absolutely no way that Richard, a former prisioner who knew what shaked on the street, would have ever met with Condon if he knew what went down in the crime. If the baby had been found it certainly could have been kept a secret (look at Ultra for example , in spite of certainly hundreds knowing about it and perhaps thousands, it was kept a secret for 40 years, and there are certainly other examples as well). He's be lucky to have been riddled that close to crimetime and possibly tortured to death right in the cemetary. So BRH may well have been CJ, but no way he was an on crime outsider. He was simply a pawn to clean up that loose end and to make the ladder - and make and clean it up he did - good job Richard, and if you hadn't gotten greedy noone would have ever heard of you.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 26, 2008 0:15:40 GMT -5
Question to anyone. I think kevkon's had a good point that the lack of mud in the nursery might be due to a more of a hardness of the ground due to the colder temperature. Were there any photos taken of the prints that might indicate what kind of mud would stick to a foot step.
How the kidnapper got into the window is not the only important question in my mind. Especially in consideration the exit is double as difficult. Is the kidnapper armored with his gun, ether, bag, flashlight (new one to explain undisturbed nursery) , chisel and note? Gets into the window. Now add a child leaving the room. If so obviously anyone with two feet wouldn't attempt this but perhaps anything short of 6 arms might better off to forget it too.
No prints or bad recovery of prints either way is not good. There isn't a good answer for either way it is. Equally bad seemingly they couldn't figure who or how many footprints were left outside. Is the woman's print found Anne's? If so why is it mentioned two sets are leading to featherbed Lane one being larger than the others.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2008 6:52:07 GMT -5
But Jack, this scenario is not unique among kidnappers. Back in 1992 Stanley Reso was kidnapped and died several days later (a few miles from where I live) in a storage container. The kidnappers , Arthur and Irene Seales continued negotiating for the ransom with the FBI for weeks knowing their hostage was dead and buried. There are numerous other examples of this as well, Leopold and Loeb for example.
Gary, I just can't put too much stock in the footprints simply because the immediate crime scene was so contaminated. I have more faith in the foot tracks found beyond the area around the house and ladders. There are some good photos of the ground and soil conditions. In most the soil appears wet but not excessively loose. One big factor here is that the house was relatively new and the soil was graded backfill. That usually means that a mix of soil types is present and drainage is variable. It could be firm clay in one area and sandy loam in another.
Michael, I don't want to beat the issue of wiping down the Nursery to death. I still see no reason for such a strange action, at least by an insider. I just wondered though, if the NJSP were convinced that the Nursery was wiped, did they ever ask Anne or Whately if there had been a comprehensive cleaning of that room at some point prior to the kidnapping? It would have been the first thing I would have asked.
As for the insider, I still see no great advantage to having someone in the room when one considers the extreme risk such a person would be taking. I also wouldn't carry, or build for that matter, a third ladder section if I had an accomplice in the room. That's an important point when one considers the design of the ladder seems heavily orientated toward weight reduction at the cost of strength. I guess I just don't see the window entry, no matter how difficult, as being insurmountable. I have climbed through enough in my life with all manner of tools and materials. You just manage one way or another. I am sure if I had a video of some of these maneuvers I performed, I'd probably say what was I thinking?. But at the time, you have a job to do and you do what it takes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2008 7:23:22 GMT -5
Based on the ingenuity shown in the ladder design and construction as well as the stature of the intended victim, is it not reasonable to believe planning and preparation for this crime were key considerations?
Notwithstanding either the incredible luck or passing along of insider information associated with the Lindberghs remaining in Hopewell on the Tuesday night, no one checking on the child between 8 and 10 pm, shutters and window unlocked, pet terrier Skean being absent and Wahgoosh at the opposite end of the house, could not the full gamut of required tools and equipment have been carried in a shoulder bag? Ultimately, why is the kidnapper restricted to carrying the child out the window or passing him to an accomplice on the ladder, when he could have lowered him by rope down to the walkway in a bag or pillow case singlehandedly?
I have to believe the crime was far too important in Hauptmann's mind not to have fully considered well in advance the maximum efficiency of any and all items required to break into a strange and dark environment and steal this particular child.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 26, 2008 19:13:24 GMT -5
Joe: Oyez, Oyez, Oyez; all stand. Dave and Joe and Jack enter in their purple robes, Joe with a target on the back and Jack with blinking Christmas Lights. Dave says, you may be seated and bangs one of Kevkon's hammers (we didn't have enough money for a gavel after buying James Brown's robes). Joe, congratulations - you win the (not current) last trivia contest in LKHF with "Skean, " and because it's been so long, you don't have to give the reason Skean wasn't at the Lindbergh home (unless you want to which might surprise some people). Prize is a $ 5,000.00 gift certificale for Victoria's Secret or 200 used SK-47's impounded recently in Iraq. You have to arrange shipping for either. For Joe, from a judge, to my mind, "incredible luck," and "coincidence" are strong wordings in true crime that predict much more than what is known about the particular crime. So lets take Ramsey as a very similar example - incredible luck at getting away with it certainly doesn't work. Both Lindbergh and Ramsey don't work out to be one person "lucky" crimes. Somebody knows or knew something other than the actual perpetrator, and maybe someday that will come out. I personally believe that the more organized crime is possibly involved (Lindbergh, Kennedy) or semi-organized (Ramsey and a host of others) the less likely it is ever to be solved because of a number of factors which anyone can imagine. The investigators, especially on this site, are doing such a great job, but I'm afraid it's a nowhere mission, and 50 years from now someone will still be saying, "that Theon Wright book costs a fortune - what's in it anyway?"
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2008 20:55:03 GMT -5
Jack, wait'll you get a load of my latest Ebay find, a genuine 1930's "Judge Crater Lives" pin-back button to complement the target on my robe. Skean took a hike just before the family left Englewood for Hopwell on Saturday, February 27 and Lindbergh couldn't track him down in time, thus nicely avoiding any responsibility for not having been on guard outside Charlie's nursery door and dropping the ball. The truth is, by the time the press caught up with him, the little terrier had stopped shaking and was more than a bit relieved at not having had his neck wrung in the dark by a guy with very strong hands who couldn't spell to save his own life.
I believe organized crime had as much to do with this case as Mickey Rosner was a boy scout. For my two cents, Hauptmann as instigator of the crime is clearly front and centre as the jigsaw puzzle progresses. The most stimulating piece of evidence to come out of this case, if it is out there somewhere, I think would be that silver thread of inadvertant information from someone in a position of trust, however faint and seemingly non-descript, that ultimately tipped the scales and convinced Hauptmann that it could be done.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 27, 2008 6:27:53 GMT -5
Absolutely. It's not their style. Bad for business. Bad all around. Why this "theory" is still around is beyond me. All one has to do is look at the kidnappings that were carried out by the mobs to see the enormous difference.
Joe, you would think this would be etched in stone. You simply can't get anywhere ( or hope to) without Herr Hauptmann in your view. I don't care what theory is being expounded, if it doesn't have BRH near it's center then it's just fantasy. Theories about secret messages in the notes, loose woman, inside accomplices, temples of theosophy, money laundering, the Schutzstaffel, phoney evidence, Bronx cabinetmakers, and God knows what else, do not and never will amount to anything if they don't incorporate BRH. It's that simple. Let him out of your sight and your lost.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2008 20:57:09 GMT -5
I certainly respect your opinion, Justice Joseph (didn't you used be a Chancellor? - downslide huh?) There are a lot of "iffy" questions about the crime having an "insider," and they were certainly there when Richard was apprehended and on trial, and up for execution. So there was a lot of suspicion about the "lone wolf" kidnapper, and some actual evidence against a single perpetrator. My question has been, since first looking at the crime, why didn't Hauptmann come up with some story - he certainly wasn't a stranger to lieing - that would keep him out of the electric chair? It seems he could not have too difficultly said that he and Fisch had actually extorted the 50K, and possibly would have been believed and supported. Or that Fisch could have had access to his garage and house (who would know) and could have even built the ladder from his lumber and constructed it somewhere else (not carpentrely) and perhaps even used to frame him as a last resort. Richard never attempted to stiff or rat anyone, while innocent or not it would have been a logical thing to do. A good new topic could be why didn't Richard try to get out of trouble? Worried - about what? If he fingered Fisch (or someone else) were there reprocussions from somewhere , or would it lead to something for his family much worse than old sparky? The girls all think you look so cool in your robe Joe - they want you to wear it backwards -Bunny and Spicer want to know if you have anything on under it. I'll even quote them "te, he, he."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 28, 2008 6:27:53 GMT -5
What do you think the "Fisch story" is? Ok, give BRH credit for only stiffing a stiff.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2008 12:42:51 GMT -5
The Fisch story is either true or it isn't true. It would only concern us if it isn't true. That would mean BRH would have to coordinate with Hans - I believe it was - to have him lie about the shoebox pass at the party. That, of course could be done, or it's possible Fisch gave Richard something else in a shoebox. Many believe that the money (part of it) had been kept in the jug under the garage floor and got wet there and yada yada... Otherwise there is no reason for that jug to be under the garage floor. Hauptmann built the garage and it's not true that he would put a floor over a freshly dug hole (per: detectives {possibly Finn}) without investigating it. Richard and Anna had very well prepared alibies for Richard (that could be only partially substantiated by others, but they were good). Remember that Ellis Parker said he went after the guy with the good story - Hauptmann knew exactly where he was on three occasions two years earlier. If Parker would have been allowed to hook Richard and Anna up to a lamp a quick solve probably would have happened. What I'm wondering is what would Hauptmann's prepared story have been before Fisch died? He, the lone kidnapper must have had one - so what could it have been? This is a legitimate question and lets see if any "lone kidnapper" buffs have an answer for it. Would he say he found it in a box on the street and hey, finders keepers? Would you eat them in a box - would you eat them with a fox? Or will the buffs now say it was Hauptmann and Fisch, which is really just another unprovable Fisch story? Incredibly, Fisch, though dead, had a solid aliby for the night of the kidnapping - two years earlier - and if looked at more closely Fisch might have had alibies for the cemetary nights as well. So two people knew exactly where they were on at least four of six evenings two years prior - sound logical? Hmm... For Kevin: I'm sure you've heard of yin and yang. Yes, they mean good and bad, or good and evil. But philisophically (and that is their true meaning) they are a way of approaching things. Tons of ink are on this subject, but justly the meaning is that if you try to find the good of something it is there but if you try to find the bad of something that is there too. Newspaper headlines are a good example. Head -"Progress Made In Iraq," Sub- "But What's To Follow?," you get the drift, I think. If you approach things (posts on here) positively then progress follows. If you approach them looking for negativity, that's really moving backwards.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 28, 2008 13:16:23 GMT -5
I guess that depends on what one considers positive and negative, Jack. If you mean by positive leaving the constraints of evidence behind and relying on bad sources, bad books, and bad news accounts, then I'd opt for negative. Actually I don't see it as a positive vs negative format, but rather a forward or backward one. I don't have a whole lot of patience for wheel spinning. Lots of smoke, but not much to show for it. I also don't have much use for polarization and those that espouse it. For me this case is not , nor has it ever been, about defending a verdict , proving a "lone wolf theory, or exonerating BRH. Personally, I see too many people with an agenda which precludes getting to the truth and the inevitable outcome of such an approach is making the pieces fit the puzzle rather than putting them together correctly to form the picture. When I hear someone claiming the ladder is a prop, for example, it's pretty clear to me that they are attempting to make the pieces fit. Similarly, when someone claims that a carpenter such as Hauptmann could never build such a ladder, that's another person forcing the pieces to fit. Now would you consider that negative or positive?
BTW, I wasn't posting on Fisch's guilt or innocence. Just that BRH gave him up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2008 14:16:49 GMT -5
Good back. Taking that carpenter issue firstly (or as Nixon used to say, I'll answer the the second part of that question first, and the third part of that question second - sounds stupid but he was brilliant brilliant) it would take a carpenter of Hauptmann's skills to build that ladder and in fact it was brilliant. Give almost anyone a pile of wood and tell them to build a two story carriable ladder and you'd wind up with a musical instrument. And (is it true you shouldn't start a sentence with a preposition?) I agree with you on filtering - some of this and LKHF is, like you say,"landing on Mars." There are some posts, however , which deserve more scrutiny. I'm thinking, since we're on yods, of Rick and Mairi and Gary and the guest that posted. Hey you are a commander here, not as exaltantent as Viceroy, but not bad, and those people choose to hang their ideas out which few people do - look at views vs posts - and should be supported and perhaps guided rather than debunked. If there was an easy answer for this crime none of us would be here, but to my mind those that are should be limitedly supported no matter what their views. I wrote a letter to a man named Brown once who was a published researcher of Lizzie Borden (you may have seen of his book - was quite popular) and he answered me from Florida with four pages of hate for the town of Fall River, MS. Grantedly he was ostracized from Fall River (I've been there - not a bad town - great ships - the Kennedy battleship is there) similarly to Lizzie, but his hate for that small city was just a torture to himself which in the end certainly solved nothing. To make a long story short which I usually don't do, and usually I try not to tell others how to do things, it just seems, Kev, that you could be more positive about things. Just my impression - don't get mad - in fact see my correct interpretation of the Razor on LKHF which is grossly misinterpreted above.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 28, 2008 16:14:03 GMT -5
Jack, we all have our ways. Mine is to debate. That's how I learn. Debating a topic or issue brings out the strengths and weaknesses of the position argued as well as the people debating it. I guess my feeling is, if it's worth your time to post, it should be worth your time to defend. Now some seem to take offense at this and construe such argument as some type of personal attack. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ultimate disrespect is to ignore a poster, imho. Another point, from my point of view the most negative position is the one held by those who purposefully interrupt a good constructive argument with some off-topic post or a completely erroneous assertion. I really feel that such individuals don't like any dialog that may erode their own position or that may actually move our collective knowledge forward. Of course, then there are the outright nuts. Always good for entertainment, though.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2008 18:53:55 GMT -5
OK Kev, final dissertation: "A pumbing we will go, a plumbing we will go..." A few people might not understand that.
|
|