DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 40)


http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/p=196666

http://JFKAssassinationForum.com/msg52512

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:


>>> "DVP is [a] piece of work that not even Central Casting could dream up for a villian [sic] in a Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza. .... Last year, at the request of a forum member at Black Op--I extended a debate challenge to Gary Mack, DVP, Reitzes and John McAdams. .... DVP chickened out. .... So now, months after the initial challenge to him was turned down, he began to email me about a debate. Except there was a qualifier. Please sit down before you read this. He wanted to set the ground rules! Yep. It's true. He did not want a scripted debate in which both sides knew the questions in advance. He wanted an off-the-cuff debate, where you could create your own questions willy nilly. .... I told him that the decision is not mine, but Len's [Osanic]. But that I would not agree to an unscripted debate for a simple reason: if McAdams made stuff up for a scripted debate, I can imagine what a fabricator like Von Pein could do when he could create his own questions. .... Bottom Line: When DVP had the opportunity to debate me fair and square, he chickened out. Now he wants to debate me in a format where he can make stuff up." <<<


DVP SAID:

DiEugenio is full of crap here.

And here's why:

It's true that I declined to debate Jim D. in 2009 when I most
certainly could have done so. But after preparing over 30 questions
for Jimbo in the months since the 2009 debate between Jim and John
McAdams, I decided to step up and challenge DiEugenio to a different
kind of JFK debate--one that would have the debaters asking the
questions, instead of relying on other people for the questions.

And that type of format regarding the questions, as I've said numerous
times since my initial challenge to Jim in early May of 2010, is a
format that I simply cannot believe DiEugenio would be AGAINST.
Because he could ask me any questions he wanted, and as many as he
wanted.

And DiEugenio's excuse of not wanting me to ask my own questions
because he's concerned that I will simply "make stuff up" is just
nuts.

Why?

Here's why:

Because from Jim's utterly crazy "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-
of-view, it's quite obvious that my own CORE BELIEFS about the whole
JFK case (including J.D. Tippit's murder) are beliefs that DiEugenio,
in effect, thinks were just "MADE UP" in the first place.

The facts about Lee Oswald's guilt weren't "made up" by me personally,
of course, but they certainly are core "Oswald Is Guilty" facts that
Jimbo believes are dead wrong and were literally MADE UP by somebody
along the way. Heck, Jim thinks this whole case is "made up" against
poor Patsy Oswald. The entire case, per Jim D., is nothing but one
great-big lie and cover-up and "made up" fact after another.

Plus: Again from DiEugenio's POV, what difference would it make to him
if I did just "make stuff up"? He would simply tell the listening
audience during our debate that I was making nonsense up, right? And
Jim would go on to explain the reasons he knows that I was making
stuff up. Isn't that kinda what a DEBATE is all about--to tell the
audience why your opponent is wrong and why you're right (even if it
means having to tell the audience why your opponent just MADE
SOMETHING UP out of thin air)?

Good heavens, if the shoe were on the other foot, and I were to back
out of a debate with James DiEugenio (or any of the many "Anybody But
Oswald" conspiracy kooks who regularly post on the Internet) merely
due to the fact that I was of the opinion that my opponent would be
inclined to "make stuff up" concerning JFK's assassination during a
radio debate with that person -- good gosh, then I'd never be able to
debate anyone like DiEugenio....because I KNOW he's going to simply
"make stuff up" himself! That's a given.

A great example being: Jim's current belief that Lee Oswald carried
NO LARGE PACKAGE WHATSOEVER into the Book Depository Building
on November 22, 1963. Jimbo, you see, now believes that BOTH Buell
Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle lied their asses off when they
each said they saw LHO carrying a long brown paper parcel on the
morning of Nov. 22nd, with Buell and Linnie being strong-armed by the
evil Dallas Police Department into making up from whole cloth their
individual stories about having seen Sweet Lee with a large package.

Now, if that wholly unsupportable and (frankly) pathetic theory about
Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle doesn't qualify as "making stuff up",
then I don't know what would qualify.

In short, James DiEugenio doesn't want to be forced to answer specific
questions written by a lone-assassin advocate like myself in a public
debate. And that's because those questions about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
which proves Lee Harvey Oswald to be the murderer of both John F.
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit will be far too much to handle from Jim
DiEugenio's "Oswald Shot Nobody" viewpoint.

Jim would be made to look so silly and foolish when answering my
dozens of questions focusing on EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE that
hangs Oswald, he has decided it would be best to reject my proposed
debate format, and stick with the questions coming from other people
instead (even though many of those questions aren't very challenging
at all, which was precisely one of Jim's complaints about the first
half of his Black Op Radio debate against John McAdams from last
September 24th).

But when given the opportunity to write his own questions (which could
potentially make me crawl under my computer desk in fear, from Jim's
POV), Mr. DiEugenio says, 'No thanks'.

I can't say I blame Jim, though. If I knew I was going to have to
admit to the four Black Op listeners that I believed that every single
piece of evidence against Lee Oswald was fake, phony, manipulated,
planted, or otherwise worthless, I think I might have a few
reservations about doing so in a public place too.

David Von Pein
July 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JULY 5, 2010)