Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Honest question: please explain, what I missed about NCI's conclusions, if I did miss something?

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by DogFather, Jul 27, 2011.

  1. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I go and look at the Pearl Harbor Attack Investigations, under table of contents and click on, The Naval
    Court of Inquiry. When I do this only part of it comes up. In this case, A Brief Description. I try and download the document and that does not work. I read what did come up and felt that I understood,
    what conclusion the NCI did come to. It all made sense, at least it did to me. I did check on some of the
    naval doctrine, used in the NCI, this also seemed to be accurate. I also found the NSA's web page:


    Pearl Harbor Review - The Investigations, said the following about the NCI:
    The Naval Court of Inquiry, 24 July 1944-19 October 1944:

    A court of inquiry was convened in response to the same congressional act of 13 July 1944. The hearings made full use of MAGIC, though the testimony on it was classified and kept from the public. The findings of the inquiry completely exonerated Admiral Kimmel. Instead, Admiral Harold Stark, chief of naval operations at the time of Pearl Harbor, was blamed for failing to adequately advise Kimmel of the critical situation prior to the attack. (bold mine)

    Which was also my thinking, right or wrong after reading what was available. Other books, like Adm Richarson's Memiors, were also very critical of Adm Stark and FDR. It also suggested, that Gen Marshall
    and Adm Stark, asked for more time to get US Military forces ready, but this was ignored by Sec of State
    Hull, FDR and other members of his admin.

    I have also found the claim, that on Dec 15th, 1941, SecNavy Frank Knox, publicly tried to blame some of the Pearl Harbor Attack damage, on sabotage by the so-called 5th Columnists. This was not accurate
    and lead to more rumors, about people of Japanese decent. However, there was a real problem with
    5th Columnists, right after the attack. Spreading false reports of enemy ship location and trying to send
    US Naval forces into a Japanese sub ambush.

    If info about the Pearl Harbor Disaster is confusing, perhaps the reason for that is, a lack of honesty,
    on the part of people like Knox.
     
  2. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,266
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    First in wartime truth is the first casualty. I would not expect politician's and military officers to be completely truthfull on all subjects as military secretcy is an imparitive. Also how much did we know about 9/11 hijackers on 9/18? I can see Knox buying into sabotuers at this point. Also the government had a vested interest in deporting Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the west coast. The reason? Suspected 5th columns. Knox may have pushed this idea to give cover for the relocations. One week after Pearl Harbor it was a threat that could not entirely be ruled out.
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,434
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Are you sure? Last time I looked all volumes were working fine, and I had no problems downloading the volumes I needed.

    Then, perhaps, you should read all of the Endorsements for the Naval Court of Inquiry, for they do not present Kimmel in the most favorable light that the Naval Court of Inquiry does. Further, and MOST IMPORTANT, is the last sentence of the Opinion section
    So the Navy has absolved themselves of all blame concerning the attack, and "Passes the buck" to the Army.

    Wow, quite a shock, don't you think? The Navy is not at all responsible for what transpired at Pearl Harbor, because it is all the Army's fault. Talk about interservice rivalry...


    Again, perhaps, if you read books and article that presented the Pearl Harbor attack from more than one point-of-view, you could expand on the breadth and depth of your knowledge on the Pearl Harbor attack.


    These "rumors" did not begin nor end with Knox and his report. They were all ready spreading by the end of the Japanese attack, and it would be many months before they were all tracked down and proven false. So, at the time of the Knox visit, a great many were still held as "true." After all, Knox made his report 7 DAYS AFTER the attack! Really, DogFather, you need to add some "common sense" to your claims.

    For that matter, what about all the reports about German participation in the attack, ranging from Germans flying the planes to German U-boats involved in the attack. Because, after all, from a 1941 American viewpoint, the Japanese were not smart or capable enough to carry out such an attack all on their own, they "MUST" have had a great deal of help from "outside" sources...


    Seriously, DogFather, this your most outstanding piece of conspiracy drivel yet! All the times you have claimed that your are not a Conspiracy Theorist, yet, with this one statement, you have shown your "true colors." Thank you for finally confirming my suspicions.

    Now, I hereby ask for PROOF of this unsubstantiated claim that Knox was deliberately misleading or false in any of his reports.
     
  4. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Takao, I'm not going to re-rebutt, your post point by point. You have clearly come up with counter
    arguments to the things I have said, in this and other posts. However, what I have said in many of my posts, are really not my opinions or ideas. They have come from historians and PH investigations (NCI & APHB). Many times, my posts contained opinions and ideas, almost verbatim, from this type of reading material. I have found on this forum, it is very necessary to document any sources used in posts. Which
    I feel that I have done. Yet, I stll get called a "Conspiracy Theorist, despite never suggesting foreknowlege, on the part of FDR or anyone in his admin. I have put up with this for some time. It just seems to be a part of this forum.

    Anyway, one opinion that is mine. Is that the public should get accurate info from officials, like the SecNavy. Once credibility is lost, in a democracy like the United States, support for any war becomes
    much more difficult. And I never suggested Knox was responsible for all rumors, but according to a
    web site he made the situation worse. From the University of Denver, history section.

    On December 8 President Roosevelt declared war on Japan. On December 15 the Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox publicly declared that Japanese sabotage on Hawaii was responsible for the success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. After this statement was made by Knox public rumors began rapidly coming from Hawaii: (italics mine)

    History

    I am only as good as what I read. When I first read the NCI, I did get the feeling it might be the navy
    protecting one of its own. I suppose it may have some bias, in this respect. On the other hand, Adm Stark
    was also a navy man. The NCI did conclude, some of his performance, as CNO, was not all that good.

    Quite honestly Takao, when people on WW2 forums, seem to feel they know more than, retired navy admirals, who had formal naval training along with yrs of actual naval experience. I very much question, the credibility of these posters, no matter how many books they have read.

    I guess what I was trying to say in my orginal post, is that it is difficulty and frustrating, to read material
    by a official, who's credibilty is very important, believe that material, then later find out, he is not
    so credible afterall.
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Sit down and read the whole thing. Quit quote mining.
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  6. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I tried download the document. I get can not display the webpage. That has happened before, when I tried.
     
  7. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    When that happens to me the problem is usually a loose nut behind the keyboard.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,434
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    DogFather,

    If you going to question my credibility, then I would, at least, expect you to present evidence to the contrary on the positions I have stated. However, you have yet to present single rebuttal to the information I have given. This raises more questions as to your credibility than it does to mine. You don’t have to rebut me point for point, but you should, at a minimum, attempt to defend your position once in awhile.

    As to your “sources” being the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board, those are only two of the many investigations into Pearl Harbor. Now, if you take a test with 10 questions on, but you only answer 2 questions, you are not very likely to get a passing grade, are you?
    In response to your
    Rather than use someone else’s paraphrase, you should quote the original NCI transcript from the "Finding of Facts"
    Now, in the NCI there is no mention of the, at least, 10 instances of Admiral Kimmel withholding information from General Stark, thus, depriving General Stark of a clear picture of the existing Japanese situation. Nor, IIRC, is their any mention of Kimmel’s failure to adequately appraise Admiral Newton of the situation, prior to Admiral Newton’s commanding of the Lexington Task Force. To find out these “nuggets”, you must read other Investigations. Thereby, using the NCI’s own judgment call against Stark, you can draw the same conclusion against Kimmel.

    Still, as I have said, you need to read other Pearl Harbor Investigations to find out these facts, and so far, you have only consulted two.


    It is also highly recommended that you do that over at AHF, especially if you are discussing “contentious” material.


    Perhaps, you are ill-informed, but that “FDR had forknowledge” is only one of many of the Conspiracy Theories concerning Pearl Harbor. Implying intentionial dishonesty, aka “Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!”, on the part of Frank Knox with
    places you squarely in the Conspiratorial Camp. If, as you say, you are not a “conspiracy theorist”, you really should learn to express your thoughts better.


    Well, first off, the Knox Report does not declare that Japanese sabotage on Hawaii was responsible for the success of the Japanese attack. The Knox Report clearly states
    In fact, the only time sabotage is mentioned is in relation to Short and Army preparations against it.

    However, I would think that it was the Japanese that “made the situation worse” by conducting a surprise or “SNEAK” attack on Pearl Harbor. This decidedly underhanded attack mode made whatever evils, real or imagined, committed by the Japanese locals that much easier to believe as true. Also, none of the rumors that are quoted on the University of Denver website are even mentioned in Knox’s report. Further, Mr. Knox’s statement was a week after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the “ugly rumors” were already being well circulated by a very skittish American population. Still, on December 15th, 1941, it is possible that a few Americans had not yet heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    The only item on which he was sanctioned, was for not duly informing Kimmel of the 14 Part Message. Which the Court suggested Stark should have used an unsafe, unsecure telephone line for transmitting this classified piece of information.

    Before you impugn my “credibility”, it would behoove you to remember that the Court can only rule by the testimony presented to it, thus, if it not on the record, the Court has never “officialy” heard it. Thus, they were not privy to testimony in following investigations, nor, do I believe, privy to information in the preceeding investigations. As such, it is very likely that I have read testimony that was not heard by the NCI. If you feel that my “credibility” is so poor, than it should be rather easy to poke holes in any of my posts. Your failure to do so, gives the impression that my “credibility” is not a poor as you seem to think…

    To close, you need to read all 40 volumes of the Congressional Hearings, or for a good synopsis begin with Prange’s ADWS.


    How is it difficult and frustrating? Prange, as well as several other books on PH, point out the fallacies of the more popular “rumors”.
    Further, before you judge Knox, remember that he got most of his information from Kimmel and Short. Both of whom had succumbed to the “rumor” mill.
     
    mikebatzel and brndirt1 like this.
  9. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am going to answer you Takao, as best I can. I am not able to get the multi-quote function to work, after a post has
    already been multi-quoted. Your multi-quote post is also getting fairly long. So, I will do the best I can, to address the
    your post.

    As, to your credibility, care to explain, the CT in the Kimmel-Layton relationship? What did they conspire to do?
    Cover for one another....or something like that. I don not see this as a credible theory at all.

    I also do not see any analogy, between Gen McClellan and Adm Richardson. One was army the other navy,
    McClellan was in command during war, Richardson's command took place during peacetime. Richardson
    was able to apply principles of military science, to the real world situation, while McClellan failed in this reguard.

    McClellan "chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units" (Source: Wiki on Gen McCellan), while Richardson did not underestimate the Japanese (that I know of, my opinion). Both were relieved of command, by the President of the
    US, but after McCellan turned on Lincoln, running against him in the 1864 Election. Richardson did not turn on FDR,
    instead he accepted his relief and continued, in my opinion, to be a good navy man, support the war effort and did not
    release his memoirs, until Adm Stark had died, who he was also very critical of. In short, I do not see any analogy at all.
    I don't know of anyone else who has seen this analogy either.

    I have read other investigations, besides the two I have quoted. I feel the Robert's Comission, lacked
    objectivity, because that's what I have read about it. The JCC was split down partisan lines, and had that
    bais. Where as the NCI and the APHB, in my opinion were more objective. After the Robert's Commisson
    and the two military investigations, came to different conclusions, more investigations were ordered.

    In my opinion, this was to confuse and cover-up, the confict. That the Robert's Robert's Comission,
    focused blame on Kimmel and Short, while NCI and APHB, shifted the blame, to some extent on FDR, his
    admin and other high officials in Washinton DC.

    Are you saying, Kimmel and Short made up stories about Japanese agents being a problem, after the
    Pearl Harbor Attack? That the Knox report, back to FDR about 5th columnists, is not accurate? That
    there was no attempt to confuse our military, as to the possible location of the enemy fleet, and try to
    send US warships into a sub ambush?

    We all know there was a lot of intel gathering on the part of Japanese enemy agents. We know this from the
    detailed maps, found in downed enemy planes.

    As far as reading all 40 volumes of the JCC. I am not sure that is necessary, to understand the Pearl Harbor Attack, or
    US entry into the Pacific War. You have obviously done a lot of reading and are able to add detail to people's posts.
    But I don't know that that necessarily means, your conclusions are better or more accurate.

    Two or three yrs ago, I began to come to a different conclusion, about the Pearl Harbor Attack, than the conclusions
    I had after after college and as a younger man.

    This is after reading more about how, Richardson was really fired, forced to retire and then Adm Nimitz turned down
    the very coveted Pacific Fleet command, only to take it after the Pearl Harbor disaster took place.

    These two things, along with my study of how FDR, was always very focused on political concerns, during his time in office. In this case, in my opinion, to the detrement of the military and our defensive strategy in the PTO.

    As far as posting on Axis History Forum, my so-called contentious material. I may do that, I don't feel that comfortable
    with that forum. I don't seen the Axis nations having any redeeming value. However, I did rebut one of your posts, on
    that forum, a little anyway. But in general, I have found your manner of rebutting posts, often just being argumentative
    and not really adressing the main point. In that situation, I don't rebut, because I don't feel that is necessary.

    Anyway, I have tried to give you some of my thinking, about the points you have made in your post.
    Because you made it clear you expected a responce. So, I hope I have given you that responce. I don't
    know that us going back and forth like this is a good thing for the forum.

    One thing I have noticed, is that it is the same group of people, in many cases, that have actully moved over
    to other forums, to....I guess, protect them from my contentious material. I just wonder, if I am
    really so, umm of such limited intellectual capacity, why do they need to do this? Can't people on those
    other forums, figure this out for themselves? I have a real feeling, that it is because of political reasons,
    people don't want me suggesting a better understanding, of some of the cover-up, or as they called
    back then a White Wash, of the events leading the US into WW2.
     
  10. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Your conclusions have been demonstrated to be have been based on incomplete and/or erroneous data, and we won't go into whether that was deliberate or not again.

    And save the paranoia. I challenge conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor without regard as to the source.
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  11. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    My intel dept has determined the likey commander, who requested your mission over to ACG. When I sent him a PM
    a while ago, on that forum. I did not know who he was, or what his father did, or anything about him. All I knew is he
    had an uncanny way of showing up everywhere I went. I had no idea he patrolled these forums in case a guy like me
    showed up. He feels that is an important thing to do. His intel is working pretty well. I have enough info now to be
    very dangerous.....y'know help people understand what happened after the disaster took place. We wouldn't want
    some of the real story to get out, now would we. It's all safe behind the historians and guys like you who are keeping it
    a secret. Books like Pearl Harbor: The Fruits and Seeds of Infamy, are not safe and probably should be banned. The
    chapter called The Cover-Up Begins, is one of the most dangerous parts of the book.

    There just no doubt about it, you may be in some very difficult battles in the future, with all the new high quality ammo
    I have.
     
  12. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,434
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    DogFather,
    You won't get a multi-quote function to work, because there is no such beast. I use the bracket&quote function, copy and
    paste a quote and type my response. The wash, rinse, repeat.

    Both officers failed to realize that the President is their superior officer, as such, any orders given by the President are to be followed, not debated. Both officers focused too much on the negatives of their respective
    force(ill-equipped, ill-prepared, not enough of this or that, etc.), as a result, both officers focused more on what their respective force was not capable of doing, rather than focusing on what their force was capable of.

    What is with, and I paraphrase, McClellan overestimated enemy strength, while Richardson did not underestimate enemy strength?

    Contrary to your opinion that Richardson did not turn on FDR, he in fact did. However, he was not as public about it as McClellan was with Lincoln. From ADWS, pg. 662
    This passage is sourced to a letter from Kimmel to Rugg dated March 14, 1945.

    Now, have you actually read the testimony, or did you just read Volume 39 "Reports, findings, and conclusions of Roberts Commission, Army Pearl Harbor Board, Navy court of inquiry, and Hewitt inquiry, with endorsements." and volume 40 "Congressional Commmittee Report and Conclusions." I wonder given your previous mis-attribution of a
    quote to the Naval Court of Inquiry, when it was from "Reports, findings, and conclusions..."

    I would believe that the Robert's Commission could never be entirely objective. It took place to close to the attack, when the Nation needed someone to "point-the finger-at." Of course, the finger will fall on the repective commanding officers who were in charge, because they were "in charge." It's mandate and, in a sense - public outcry, did not allow for the in-depth investigation that could get to the root causes of the failures that took place. That being said, the testimony is very straight forward, and the Commission heard from "everyone" and did not focus just on the "top brass." From reading the testimony given to the Robert's Commission, Kimmel and Short to bear the "lion's share" of the burden.

    The Naval Court of Inquiry likewise comes to some questionable conclusions That I have mentioned before, however, while they may not obey the spirit of law, they do adhere strictly to it. Thus, by a very narrow definition, they conclude that the Navy was not to blame for anything that happened at Pearl Harbor. While those whom are more concerned with the spirit of the law, can easily see that that is not so, and the Navy did bear some
    responsibility for the disaster at Pearl.

    The Army Pearl Harbor Board was probably as fair as one could hope for, spreading the blame between Washington and Hawaii. However, incorrect information(it would be disproven at a later date) given to the Board led them to place more blame on Washington than it rightly deserved.

    What exactly are they covering up and confusing? The testimony given to each Investigation varies, no Investigation calls on exactly
    the same witnesses, different questions are asked and different answers given. Perhaps, it would be less confusing all investigations questioned the same witnesses and asked the same question, but that would also have
    it's own pitfalls.

    Did not all the rumors prove to be false? No, I am not saying that they "made up" stories of Japanese agents being a problem. Most likely, they were just repeating what they had heard from their suboordinates. We know about Short's predisposition towards sabotage, so he was likely very easily convinced that the any and all rumors were true. Kimmel was also swayed to the "Fifth Column" position and wrote to Admiral Stark, on December 12th, that "The Fifth Column activities added great confusion and it was most difficult to evaluate reports received..." Except, as we know, all of the rumored fifth column activity was false.

    As far as Knox knew, the report was as accurate as it could be. Only with hindsight, do we know the errors contained within. This, I think is you biggest failing DogFather. You cannot view the events at the moment they happened. You claim, that Knox deliberately lied in his report, except, at the time, the information he gave was considered to be entirely accurate.

    You don't know anything about anything, do you DogFather?

    There was no attempt to confuse the US military as to the location of their fleet or lead the US fleet into a torpedo ambush. If you had any idea about Direction-Finding, you would know this to be utter foolishness. A Direction Finder will return two bearings, the bearing to the transmitter and a reciprocal bearing(180 degrees in the opposite direction). The DFer will then chose between the bearings as to which the true source lies, thus,
    without any additional information, you will have a 50-50 chance of being correct. This is why triangulation was very important, with several different DF stations taking the bearings to a transmitter, it's location is easily
    visible where the lines intersect. So, even if there was a Japanese "fifth columnist" with a radio transmitter to the south, the US military is just as likely to choose north as the "true" bearing, and head off in the correct
    heading to Kido Butai.

    As to the torpedo ambush, it is utter rubbish! Do you have any idea as to how many I-Boats were stationed around Hawaii at the time of the attack? There were some 25 submarines surrounding Oahu, with the majority focused in the Pearl Harbor area. Their primary objective was to sink any ships coming or going from Pearl Harbor. That they had few contacts and even fewer engagements with American vessels says alot about Japanese submarine tactics. Although, they did come close to popping the USS Enterprise.

    We also know that there were few Japanese agents inside their embassy and even fewer out in public, and that there was no "fifth column."
    We also know that American agents were doing the same thing in Japan, and had been doing so for many years. They spy on us, we spy on them, it is how the game is played, these agents are "official" spies called naval attaches.

    However, the Japanese had the decided advantage in this arena. In Japan a Caucasian stands out like a sore thumb, whereas, in Hawaii an Oriental does not. The Japanese took great pains to hide their military bases from prying
    eyes, the Americans did not. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight...Whereas those at Pearl Harbor did not.

    Then correct me wher I am wrong.

    How was Richardson "really" fired? Why did Nimitz turn down command of the Pacific Fleet?

    Politicians will be politicians, always looking towards the next election. As they say, "them's the breaks", unless you prefer a military dictatorship/junta, you will always have this. Sometimes political and
    military aims conincide and sometime they diverge. You could likely point out similar instances during each President's time in office.

    Umm, DogFather, you do know that the point of a rebuttal is to contradict and/or nullify evidence that has been presented. Thereby, your lack of a rebuttal shows that you have no evidence to substantiate or back up your
    claim.

    I don't know about the rest of the members, but I'm registered "No affiliation".

    Again, if you provided much better information, you would probably win more converts, however you trot out very old information that has already been folded, spindled, and mutilated many times over.



    In closing, DogFather, your have not offered any counter-evidence to any of my previous responses, with the exception of questioning my comparison of Richardson to McClellan. Further, you have provided no evidence or
    source for Knox's "intentional lies." Instead you have treated us to a long diatribe about how you feel you are being persecuted. So, I say to you once again, "Prove me wrong."
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,434
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    DogFather,

    What is in Chapter 18 that is "breaking new ground"?

    Outside of some outlandish hypothesis, insipid questions, and, quite frankly, reading like a "National Enquirer" article. That Chapter brings to light nothing new concernig Pearl Harbor.

    My "Magic 8-Ball" says:
    Ban Ch. 18?: "No."
    Relegate it to the funny papers?: "Fairly certain."
    Give Percy a lifetime contract to write for the "National Enquirer"?:
    "Hell, Yes!
     
  14. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I will answer some of your points, when I figure out how to use I use the bracket & quote function.
    That you talked about in an earlier post. It would be helpful, if you explain that a little better.
     
  15. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    You're bring a knife to a gun fight.
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,434
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Down towards the bottom of the page, in the "Posting Permissions", is a link called BB Code...Oh, they heck with it

    Go here: BB Code List - World War II Forums
    Scroll down to the heading called "Quote", everything is explained there.
     
  17. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Slow down, mate, he's only been here a few years. Don't rush him.
     
  18. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,266
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Does anyone else here think they are in a episode of the Twilight Zone?
     
  19. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Just the usual pattern, really. I've had death threats, boxes of dog crap mailed to me, complaints to UNC because they're letting me post "lies" on a "government-supported University computer system!", and threats of violence too numerous to count. I'm a fairly large guy so the face-to-face threats are rare, but I had one guy take a swing at me in the waiting room of a VA hospital while I was reading Herbert Feis. So this stuff is nothing new.
     
  20. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,266
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Perhaps I should have said The Godfather :)
     

Share This Page