On May 8, 2010, I sent the following e-mail to James DiEugenio. If he
is willing to debate me on these terms, then I'm ready, willing, and
very eager (and these terms regarding the format should positively
appeal to DiEugenio too; there's every reason in the world for him to
love this type of format just as much as I do):
Subject: Attn.: James DiEugenio (Re: Debate With DVP)
Date: 5/8/2010 1:31:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
ATTN. JAMES DiEUGENIO:
If you are still willing to debate me about the JFK assassination, I
am now ready and eager to participate in such a radio debate with you.
The most convenient times in the near future for me to engage in such
a debate would be anytime between the dates of June 1 and June 15,
As for the format of any such radio debate (which I assume would take
place on the Black Op Radio program, with Len Osanic serving as
moderator/host), I have an idea that I think should probably appeal to
you as well:
Instead of taking questions from third parties (such as from "Black
Op" listeners who write in questions via e-mail, etc.), I'd prefer a
format where each of the two debaters (you and I) present various
questions to the other person.
That way, you can put together several questions that you would like
an LNer like me to answer, and I can ask you various questions that
I'd like to hear you answer.
Each of us would ask the other party the same number of questions, to
keep things fair from a "numerical" standpoint.
To give you a heads-up on the number of questions I would like to
present at any such debate, I have already put together a total of 23
questions [it's now up to 33, as of 7/14/2010] regarding the JFK case
(plus a couple of follow-up questions within those 23 ) that I
would like to ask you.
Therefore, for the sake of fairness and "equal time", you would get to
ask me the same number of questions.
If Len Osanic (or others) wanted to add a few questions too, I think
that would be okay as well. But for the bulk of the debate, I would
much prefer the format I just outlined--with you and I deciding what
questions we want the other person to answer.
I don't favor the idea of the parties being shown the questions in
advance, however. That would dilute the debate severely, in my
opinion. I won't know what questions you'll be asking me; and,
conversely, you won't know what questions are going to be coming from
my side of the fence either.
Sound fair to you?
If you have other ideas on the debate format, let me know. We can
probably work out something. But I feel that the format I just
outlined should appeal to both of us, inasmuch as it would keep the
"softball" type questions from being asked in the first place.
Let me know if you are agreeable to this proposition.
David Von Pein