On Jan 26, 3:52 pm, Barb Junkkarinen
comcast.net>
wrote:> On 26 Jan 2008 16:49:47 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>
>
>
>
>
mindspring.com> wrote:>>On Jan 26, 12:10 am, John McAdams
marquette.edu> wrote:>>> On 25 Jan 2008 21:36:06 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>>>
mindspring.com> wrote:>>>>On Jan 24, 12:31 am, Barb Junkkarinen
comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:>>>>> On 23 Jan 2008 23:55:24 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>>>>>>Then you must tend to type before you think, as you had to let off a
>>>>>>lot of steam before acknowledging you haven't even bothered to read
>>>>>>the page. Thought you might have done that before asking Mellon to
>>>>>>post here.
>
>>>>> Focus, Pamela.
>
>>>>> I asked Mellon a question about her personal experience with Judyth
>>>>> .... because of a claim posted here.
>
>>>>Because Mellon uses information that is consistent with information that
>>>>Judyth says she shared with Mellen.
>
>>>>> Mellen replied about her personal experience with Judyth.
>
>>>>By dismissing any possibility that the information on Customs that Mellon
>>>>used in AF2J came from Judyth. Then, Mellen added a curious and unnecesary
>>>>jab at Judyth.
>
>>>>> That has nothing do do with me or anyone else knowing about Mellon's
>>>>> book or webpage or anything else.
>
>>>>I suppose that in the aaj environment, ignorance is bliss.
>
>>>>> Maybe that's difficult for you to see because you never do answer a
>>>>> straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Mellon did.
>
>>>>You blithely invited and posted Mellen's email here. You did not do any
>>>>homework. John's page on AF2J dismisses Mellen's witness as a con artist,
>>>>and Mellen's book as well. Are you starting to grab a clue yet?
>
>>>>Per John's page, Is Mellen's witness a con artist and flim-flam man? Are
>>>>we to find anything he says credible? What are we to think of a book that
>>>>places such a witness at the heart of its thesis?
>
>>> I've been trying to figure out why Pamela wants to slam Mellen, who is
>>> absurdly pro-Garrison.
>
>>You're blowing straw John. Referencing your negative page, actually a
>>review by Lambert, is the issue. It is this page which attempts to
>>discredit Mellen's witness and dismiss her book.
>
>>> I gather it's so she can blow off Mellen's report that Mary Ferrell
>>> told her that Judyth is a fraud.
>
>>Your misquoting the hearesay from Barb John.
>
> True. Mary didn't tell me Judyth was a fraud. She used the word "nut."
>
>
>
>>Barb sandbagged Mellon somewhat by asking her to post an email on aaj
>>without Barb's having done her homework on your negative page on
>>Mellon and her witness.
>
> Soooo...when I asked if you were unable to understand that me asking
> Mellon a specific question about specific information Judyth
> apparently claims she gave Mellon has NOTHING to do with any page McA
> has ...any page Mellon has ....and the thesis of Mellon's book ...
> your answer obviously should have been "yes."
>
> Mellon was not sandbagged in the least. She thanked me as a matter of
> fact. She asked me to please post a response for her to Martin. She
> declined to respond to your post. :-)
>
>
>
>>> Mellen's historical judgments are piss poor, no doubt.
>
>>You would say that about anyone who gives credit to Garrison and his
>>investigation, wouldn't you?
>
> What to do, what to do .... unhappy with Mellon's message about
> Judyth, you make me the bad girl .... but you want to defend Mellon
> becuase of her book on Garrison, you take it out on John.
>
> Anybody ever accountable for their own thoughts and actions in your
> "gotta blame somebody for everything that isn't what I want" world?
>
>
>
>>> And she may have rejected Judyth's account for a bad reason: she
>>> thought the hermaphrodite thing reflected badly on Garrison.
>
>>It was an unnecessary jab at Judyth that makes me wonder what else is
>>going on, that's all.
>
> Just maybe she was doing exactly what she said she wanted to do
> given's Judyth claim ... "In the interest of full disclosure" she
> related her total experience with Judyth.
>
>
>
>>> But there is no reason in the world to think she's lying about what
>>> Mary Ferrell told her.
>
>>You dismiss what Mellen says about Beckham and Garrison, yet approve of
>>whatever hearsay there may be about Judyth? Are you going to share with us
>>your reasoning in this regard, John?
>
> Why should he. You never "share" any of your "reasoning" on anything
> no matter how many times by how many people and in how many ways you
> are asked.
Amen
> Go figure why MY name in the title of yet another of your new
> threads. Get over yourself, Pamela ... please. And for heaven's sake
> get over me.
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>>Pamela McElwain-Brown- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
