a million monkeys or Jim Menning typed in news.admin.net-abuse.email:

snip

Virus on the Italian computer, or someone being a troublemaker, I'm
not sure.

Open port/unsecured box.

It's either a ****** called Dippy or Hipcrime or a dipclone thereof.
Basically the luser wants to disrupt nan-as by posting off-topic " sporgeries"
to other groups with a followup back here. Currently dippy has his knickers in
a twist since most folk here have advanced filtering or use services such as
supernews that quickly filter most of the crap.

I've found Hamster works well, you wind up running your own local news spool
though. And it's not the least trivial thing to get set up.

This is a good site to start reading about hamster and nfilter
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/davidgb/x_setup11.html

Have a happy,

--
rbg
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.
sig by KookieJar 6.3, got Kookie?

Uncle Peter wrote:
Where the hell did this crap come from?? I never posted it, do I
have a virus?

Pete

Nope. It's just someone forging junk across all of Usenet in order to get
people to crosspost replies into news.admin.net-abuse.email.

--
73, Ron Sharp.

Uncle Peter wrote:
Where the hell did this crap come from?? I never posted it, do I
have a virus?

Pete

Nope. It's just someone forging junk across all of Usenet in order to get
people to crosspost replies into news.admin.net-abuse.email.

--
73, Ron Sharp.

of modern history. With people like Davis
translating for them, RFK does not pursue Giancana, they are
actually pals in MONGOOSE. The Kennedys agree with the Joint
Chiefs: we should invade Cuba. And then escalate in Vietnam.
Disinformation feeds on disinformation, and whatever the record
shows is shunted aside as the tabloid version becomes "accepted
history," to use Davis' phrase (p. 290). The point of this
blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become
no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower.
In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As
I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys
are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home,
then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana.
And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had
his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you
get burned. Tsk. Tsk.

But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys
were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what
difference does it make in history if they were assassinated? The
only people who should care are sentimental Camelot sops like
O'Donnell and Powers who were in it for a buck anyway. Why waste
the time and effort of a new investigation on that. For the CIA,
this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the
net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the
focus of Hersh's book has shifted between Oswald did it for the
Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.

The standard defense by these purveyors is th

of modern history. With people like Davis
translating for them, RFK does not pursue Giancana, they are
actually pals in MONGOOSE. The Kennedys agree with the Joint
Chiefs: we should invade Cuba. And then escalate in Vietnam.
Disinformation feeds on disinformation, and whatever the record
shows is shunted aside as the tabloid version becomes "accepted
history," to use Davis' phrase (p. 290). The point of this
blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become
no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower.
In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As
I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys
are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home,
then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana.
And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had
his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you
get burned. Tsk. Tsk.

But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys
were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what
difference does it make in history if they were assassinated? The
only people who should care are sentimental Camelot sops like
O'Donnell and Powers who were in it for a buck anyway. Why waste
the time and effort of a new investigation on that. For the CIA,
this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the
net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the
focus of Hersh's book has shifted between Oswald did it for the
Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.

The standard defense by these purveyors is th

Texas Monthly which in turn
got him a guest spot on Nightline.) This is also when Leary began
hooking up with Gordon Liddy, doing carnival-type debates across
college campuses, an act which managed to rehabilitate both of
them and put them both back in the public eye.

There is another problem with Leary's book: the Phil Graham
anecdote. In his book, Leary has Mary tell him that the cat was
out the bag as far as her and JFK were concerned. The reason was
that a well-known friend of hers had blabbed about them in
public. This is an apparent reference to Post owner Phil Graham's
outburst at a convention in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. This famous
incident (which preceded his later alleged mental breakdown)
included - according to Leary - a reference to Kennedy and Mary
Meyer. The story of Graham's attendance at this convention and
what he did and said has been described in different ways in
different books. Unfortunately for Leary, his dating of the
convention does not jibe with any that I have seen. In 1986, Tony
Chaitkin tracked down the correct date, time, and place of the
meeting. No one had done it correctly up to that time. But
Chaitkin and his associates went one step further. They
interviewed people who were there. None of the attendees recalled
anything said about Mary Meyer.

To me, this apocryphal anecdote and Leary's book seem ways to
bolster a tale that needed to be recycled and souped up before
its chinks began to show. Leary's reason for being a

Texas Monthly which in turn
got him a guest spot on Nightline.) This is also when Leary began
hooking up with Gordon Liddy, doing carnival-type debates across
college campuses, an act which managed to rehabilitate both of
them and put them both back in the public eye.

There is another problem with Leary's book: the Phil Graham
anecdote. In his book, Leary has Mary tell him that the cat was
out the bag as far as her and JFK were concerned. The reason was
that a well-known friend of hers had blabbed about them in
public. This is an apparent reference to Post owner Phil Graham's
outburst at a convention in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. This famous
incident (which preceded his later alleged mental breakdown)
included - according to Leary - a reference to Kennedy and Mary
Meyer. The story of Graham's attendance at this convention and
what he did and said has been described in different ways in
different books. Unfortunately for Leary, his dating of the
convention does not jibe with any that I have seen. In 1986, Tony
Chaitkin tracked down the correct date, time, and place of the
meeting. No one had done it correctly up to that time. But
Chaitkin and his associates went one step further. They
interviewed people who were there. None of the attendees recalled
anything said about Mary Meyer.

To me, this apocryphal anecdote and Leary's book seem ways to
bolster a tale that needed to be recycled and souped up before
its chinks began to show. Leary's reason for being a

she had been with no one
else during the whole time, "not ever" she assures us. Trying to
remain a gentleman, I will only refer the reader to approximately
the second half of the book, which details a rather active social
life on her part.

Finally, what raises this latest revelation to a jocular level is
Exner's description of Kennedy's reaction to her pregnancy when
she informs him of the news. Again, let us use Exner's own words
as quoted by Smith:
So Jack said, "Do you think Sam would help us? Would you ask
Sam? Would you mind asking?" I was surprised, but said I'd
ask. So I called Sam and we had dinner. I told him what I
needed. He blew sky-high. "Damn him! Damn that Kennedy." He
loved to be theatrical, and he always enjoyed picking on
Jack.

Smith/Herodotus was so carried away by that cute, cuddly Italian
mobster that she never bothered to ponder the fact that
zillionaires in America have always had quiet, discreet ways to
solve such personal problems. How about a private jet to a
secretive Swiss clinic? They don't need Mafia chieftains to help
them. Especially one with six FBI agents following him around
ready to squeal on Kennedy the minute Hoover wants them to.

Say That Again Please

There is one revelation in the article that does not come off
tongue-in-cheek.

After talking to Smith's pal Hersh, Exner calls Smith back. She
states that the Kennedy-Giancana talks could be released under
the JFK Act. She then adds: "I hope they will. The government
wants me to talk again." [Emphasis add

she had been with no one
else during the whole time, "not ever" she assures us. Trying to
remain a gentleman, I will only refer the reader to approximately
the second half of the book, which details a rather active social
life on her part.

Finally, what raises this latest revelation to a jocular level is
Exner's description of Kennedy's reaction to her pregnancy when
she informs him of the news. Again, let us use Exner's own words
as quoted by Smith:
So Jack said, "Do you think Sam would help us? Would you ask
Sam? Would you mind asking?" I was surprised, but said I'd
ask. So I called Sam and we had dinner. I told him what I
needed. He blew sky-high. "Damn him! Damn that Kennedy." He
loved to be theatrical, and he always enjoyed picking on
Jack.

Smith/Herodotus was so carried away by that cute, cuddly Italian
mobster that she never bothered to ponder the fact that
zillionaires in America have always had quiet, discreet ways to
solve such personal problems. How about a private jet to a
secretive Swiss clinic? They don't need Mafia chieftains to help
them. Especially one with six FBI agents following him around
ready to squeal on Kennedy the minute Hoover wants them to.

Say That Again Please

There is one revelation in the article that does not come off
tongue-in-cheek.

After talking to Smith's pal Hersh, Exner calls Smith back. She
states that the Kennedy-Giancana talks could be released under
the JFK Act. She then adds: "I hope they will. The government
wants me to talk again." [Emphasis add

And the things Summers
leaves out are as important as what he puts in. For instance, he
omits the facts that her psychiatrist did not know the drugs that
her internist was prescribing; the weird nature and background of
her house servant Eunice Murray; and her pending reconciliation
with Joe DiMaggio which, of course, makes her "torrid romance"
with Bobby even more incredible. The reconciliation makes less
credible Summers' portrait of an extremely neurotic Monroe, which
he needs in order to float the possibility that she was going to
"broadcast" her relationship with the Kennedys.

Summers' book attracted the attention of Geraldo Rivera at ABC's
20/20. Rivera and his cohort Sylvia Chase bought into Goddess
about as willingly as Summers bought Slatzer. They began filing a
segment for the news magazine. But as the segment began to go
through the editors, objections and reservations were expressed.
Finally, Roone Arledge, head of the division at the time, vetoed
it by saying it was, "A sleazy piece of journalism" and "gossip-
column stuff" (Summers p. 422). Liz Smith, queen of those gossip-
columnists, pilloried ABC for censoring the "truth about 1962."
Rivera either quit or was shoved out by ABC over the controversy.
Arledge was accused by Chase of "protecting the Kennedys" (he was
a distant relative through marriage). Rivera showed his true
colors by going on to produce syndicated specials on Satanism and
Al Capone's vaults (which were empty). He is now famous for
bringing tabloidism to television. Arledge won the battle. Rivera
and Liz Smith won the war. Until 1993.

The Truth About Marilyn

In 1993, Donald Spoto wrote his bio of Monroe. After reading the
likes of Haspiel, Slatzer and Summers, picking up Spoto is