Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : JFK Jr., Is this an assasination? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (220)	8/5/1999 7:25:00 AM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542

I don't think you can seriously assert that JFK didn't share the Protestant ethos, or that he didn't share the ethos of the American mainstream even if he was a Roman Catholic. Maybe some reform of this ethos was in the process of making, and then it should not be personalized, but seen as an impersonal process, I think; whether this was going on under an aspect of denomination(al ethics), will forever stay quite arguable. You could, however, point out that an incongruence of the President and the mainstream ethos was alleged, and then present some sources from 1961 to corroborate. Those sources would surely be criticized on reasons of (bi)partisanship. If you assume that 85 per cent of the American population, at least symbolically, took part in the conspirational assassination of their president, you might turn to see the assassination as an ostracism, a slip in the choice of means, but an expression of the will of the majority. Still, you go on to assert (I think correctly) the far-reaching popularity of the president JFK. I think therefore you have run into some kind of dilemma. I think you are wrong about the number 85 per cent for 1963 and wrong about the proper usage of the term WASP for today. I think proper usage of WASP today is: don't use it anymore. I invite truedog or C Kahn to correct me here for both assumptions. Regards MNI. PS: I thought you would rather go on to show up how the current situation is, in your view, still connected to that old happenings. Maybe the recent buying of the Zapruder film fits in your equation?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (220)	8/5/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: C Kahn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542

GUSTAVE JAEGER, I have read all of the information that you have presented. and I know you have a very complex view of the situation. But, in this response, you seem to suggest that JFK was assassinated because he was a Catholic. I find this a little difficult to digest. BTW my father was a Catholic, my mother a WASP, and I am married to a Jew, so where does that put me in the scheme of things? C Kahn

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (220)	8/5/1999 3:08:00 PM
From: truedog	Respond to of 542

to: GUSTAVE JAEGER from: truedog The first thing I mentioned about your ridiculous assassination combo was that my ancestry fit the restricted definition of WASP but, that I did not agree with their take on things. I am more Native American in philosophy than white European, which should indicate my dislike for their premises (if you could comprehend what you read,that is). Your vitriolic diatribe against Jews brands yourself as anti-semetic no matter how you try to defend it. The pattern is becoming clear that you are following the Catholic dogma from Rome in hating both the Protestants and Jews. I vehemently disagree with some people and do not like some very much but I do not hate anybody. As far as I am concerned, you can take your hate and put it where the sun don't shine. TD