Shockingly Close to the Truth by James W. Moseley

[Wade]

Or what about W^

 

[Burnt State]

I think maybe I'll just post as"W" it has a certain ring to it.

That was already taken by an obnoxious republican but if you think you can reclaim it then I'm right behind you.

 

[The Darkroom]

The sections you are looking for are available in an online preview at Amazon (at least in the USA).

Thank you very much for that tip to check Amazon. I neglected to do that before asking for your help. Sorry.

One thing you could still check in that book though. Was there anything about Stanford on page 248? Amazon does not preview that page, and I want to be certain I did not miss something Jim may have said on page 248.

Thanks again for your tip and help.

 

[The Darkroom]

Just curious. If you are so familiar with the location of these passages that you can recall their exact pages what is the point of having Sentry post them here in the forum ? Do you not remember the content only their exact location ?

You need to read my first and second post to understand why you did not need to post that. Can't help you if you can't figure it out, cause your ulterior motives are clearly in play anyway.

 

[The Darkroom]

Without really giving it much thought I did immediately think, 'well, this Darkroom fella must be such a great pal of DS because he is willing to write a damn long post putting his 'friend' DS' views on being so harshly and unfairly treated, across to us all.....

I simply cut-n-pasted DissectionStalker's long post. A couple of mouse clicks to copy from email is all it took.

I confirm DS has already had several comments to offer about Stanford, but I do not have to quote DS if I want to pass-on his ideas. DS aims for the truth. He might surface online elsewhere.

I'm having fun investigating this subject. It seems Ray Stanford and Chris O'Brien have had little to no darkroom experience with photography. Have you or anyone else here besides Burnt State?

 

[Sentry]

Was there anything about Stanford on page 248?

No, it began a new chapter.

 

[The Darkroom]

No, it began a new chapter.

Thanks.

Yes. The point in my post is [...] I am not sure there is much merit in dredging up who said what about whom some 40+ years ago, what is this, TMZ?

Based on 'the extreme' evidence Stanford claims he has this is way beyond TMZ territory. He deserves to be fully investigated as much as possible, and based on what DS learned in the Paracast with Micah Hanks Chris O'Brien can not always be trusted to provide accurate information about Stanford. He hasn't corrected that mistake after it was pointed out too.

 

[Wade]

Do you remember Tyder 101? Our one-time friendly catholic from Alabama? He was the first person I became aware of who was banned for a time and made a second account - Angelo however was onto him like a ferret up a drainpipe and had checked his IP address quicker than I can reach the spacebar from here!

I miss him and while I didn't share his dogmatic belief system at the same time I have never really dismissed the thought of a higher being that may have dominion over us but not any direct control but mostly i admire Tyder 101 for sticking to his guns. I also admired that being the good Catholic he is he confessed and admitted he had a problem and if I remember correctly he voluntarily banished himself as he saw the impact it had on him and others and on this forum and so he stepped away.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I miss him and while I didn't share his dogmatic belief system at the same time I have never really dismissed the thought of a higher being that may have dominion over us but not any direct control but mostly i admire Tyder 101 for sticking to his guns. I also admired that being the good Catholic he is he confessed and admitted he had a problem and if I remember correctly he voluntarily banished himself as he saw the impact it had on him and others and on this forum and so he stepped away.

I totally agree.

I got on well with Tyder and he did withdraw when it became clear (only due to Angelo's sleuthing efforts I may add) that he had been using a sock-puppet account. I think he started doing so mainly to continue arguing with certain people in certain threads when he felt he'd reached the limits of what his nice-guy personality should or could say, he really let rip when he hid behind the new account and that is what got him into trouble - basically he was found out by Angelo and was kinda shamed, probably rightly, for using a 2nd account to say things he wouldn't in his original account.

I actually exchanged a number of PM's with Tyder when it all came out and we both agreed he'd been a silly boy but the level of calls for recrimination we both felt started to get a little out of proportion because although embarrassing, his misdeeds were pretty low on the scale of what is possible. So basically he voluntarily took a 'time-out' (he wasn't banned) and at the time I think he said he may stay away and reflect on what led him to take the course he did, and possibly come back later a more humble Tyder. But unless he came back under a totally new name, I don't think he ever returned and I often wonder if he still listens to the show. Perhaps I may give him an on-air shout out if I'm back on sometime.

Makes me think of the members who come and contribute positively and then disappear like ships in the night, rarely to be seen again! I'm sure there are many. Digital Trickster where are you?