The Future of the JFK Forum

[David Andrews]

I have thoroughly enjoyed my membership (and prior reading experiences) in the JFK Assassination Debate at Education Forum, and am convinced that, whatever its current or past problems, it is superior to other JFK forums - all of which share its problems and exhibit them to a greater and more debilitating degree.

I have been troubled by some of of Jim DiEugenio's attitude here, disingenuous given that Education Forum has been one of his most important operational bases, along with the CTKA site and Black Op Radio. However, I believe that DiEugenio is an important and valuable scholar in the field, and one who holds the promise of being able to represent the research community publicly, and keep the JFK and RFK assassinations investigations current in the media and the public mind. I admit that some of his conduct here undermines that promise.

I have had no issue with Tom Scully's scholarship or moderation. As a moderator, he has been no more prone to immoderation, bias, or self-concern than his fellow moderators. His scholarship represents the finding and reporting of factual minutiae that characterizes some of the best past work here.

Having said that, I will offer that I, like them, have been troubled by some of Peter Janney's scholarship and assertions in Mary's Mosaic. Like them, I have found Hank Albarelli's work suppositional and ungrounded in researchable sources. Like them, I find defenses of Priscilla Johnson's work to be both highly doubtful and questionable.

If we had accepted many assertions made by David Heymann or Seymour Hersh - as DiEugenio, vociferously, has not - we would risk ongoing, uncritical acceptance of the works named in the paragraph above. Then, as a recent JFK Debate critic suggested, we would be incorporating anti-historical material into a kind of fan fiction.

I have to offer also that - as among the communists, as among the French existentialists, as among past Kennedy historians, and as in today's mainstream media - scholarship is political. It has always dwelt in partisanship and exercised itself through infighting, however indefensible this may be to ideals of "pure" scholarship. Partisan criticism has often been vituperative and excessive, and addressed ad hominem. This happens among competing university researchers of dead English kings or century-old literary figures - why would it not occur among scholars of relatively recent, and still influential, political events?

We're dealing in issues of human tendency here, including human pride. Thus, I don't know if it's possible, or even desirable to these researchers, to have DiEugenio or Scully back in any sort of "chastened" state. I do feel that in losing them, we are losing important links to Education Forum's past and to its future. Yes, the exchanges between them and their opponents could have been more civil - but they occurred in a fast medium that fosters unconsidered, "shoot-from-the-hip" responses, including attacks and counterattacks. Yet Marc Antony and Cicero operated likewise in the Roman senate, and in the published works (some by their followers) that emerged from their exchanges. Let us not even get into Jeffersonian-age politics.

In a literate age, and in an electronically literate one, more people read the exchanges on Education Forum than did the Roman controversies, and the Forum does constitute an immediately accessible record of contributors' worst tendencies. And that has legal ramifications, which could erect a casus belli out of any ungentlemanly remark. So I do see that angle of Mr. Simkin's concern, and I also understand his principled interest in pure scholarship and honorable conduct.

Further, I will always respect and value John Simkin for creating the JFK Assassination Debate, and be grateful to him for it. I only wish that all parties involved - and all contributors here - would understand the inevitable partisan nature of scholarship, and work cooperatively to keep it within bounds acceptable to the age of communication and legality in which the Forum operates.

Edited June 9, 2013 by David Andrews

[Dawn Meredith]

John,

I've had my differences with both of them and certainly agree that Tom is not fit to be a moderator but I think you may have over reacted a bit, perhaps it would be better to put them on moderation. I don't remember ever agreeing with Martin before but I think booting members without warning is not fair; most members have very strong feelings about the issues they debate here and may get carried away at times. Normally members aren't even put on moderation without warning. This is of course your forum and you can do as you please, but would you have kicked Jim and Tom out if they had acted they way that had regarding issues were not as close to your heart? You should consider the chilling effect this could have, members could be afraid to disagree with you too vigorously for fear of being shown the door. I imagine Jim and Tom will retreat to the DPF and suspect others may follow.

JIm has been posting at DPF for a very long time.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I am new to this forum and must say that I find the atmosphere here quite a welcome change from the previous forums I frequented. The words infighting and personal attacks barely describe the bloodbaths that went on there.

I sincerely believe that, in the realm of JFK research and debate, there are parties representing the interests of people who wish and need the masses to believe in the sanctity and faultlessness of the Warren Commission findings. While many see the JFK assassination as a fifty year old crime hardly relevant to modern issues, many others see the coverup of the assassination as the cornerstone supporting all the ensuing lies of the last fifty years. If we no longer believed the Warren Commission, would we then question the truth behind other issues, such as Iraq?

Mr. Simkin has provided for us the best forum on the Internet for the discussion of the JFK assassination. It is our privilege to be here, not our right, and our conduct here should reflect that. I am likely one of the worst offenders, as I often give in to the temptation to engage trolls over minor points. I would like to thank Mark Knight for pointing out to me the fruitlessness of one such engagement, and to ask him to not be afraid to point out again if he thinks I am going "too far".

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.

This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.

John,

Good!

Let Di Eugenio and Scully serve as examples of what we can expect if we defame or libel other members.

We've been warned.

Thank you,

--Tommy

Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Josh Cron]

I've never been a big fan of anyone who tried to ban the use of a word.

What if OJ Simpson or Bernie Madoff joined the forum? Would I be kicked out for calling them liars?

[Thomas Graves]

Why is Lamson still here?

Comic relief?

(from Wikipedia: "Comic relief is the inclusion of a humorous character, scene or witty dialogue in an otherwise serious work, often to relieve tension.")

[...]

I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.

This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.

John,

Good!

Let Di Eugenio and Scully serve as examples of what we can expect if we verbally attack and defame other members.

We've been warned.

Thank you,

--Tommy

Really Tommy?

Two questions for you

1. When did Jim "verbally attack and defame other members" in a way that singled him out from everyone who retains membership here?

2. Why are Jim and Tom not entitled to a warning like the rest of us?

Sorry Martin,

I guess I should have said (tongue in cheek?), "Let Jimbo serve as an example of what we can expect if we are more rabidly overly-opinionated than the general membership."

Comic relief is right.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning.

There is much outright crap posted here by dilettantes, agenda-driven shills and the historically-challenged - all considered fair game by moderators who fail to act - yet those who draw attention to the fact that it is outright crap are the ones “moderated.”

The imbalance of moderation - letting David Lifton question the mental health of other members, but acing his victims when they respond in kind - is not “moderation;” it is sucking up and fawning of the most egregious sort.

Those too faint of heart to man up when their hokum is rightly labeled as hokum should be shown the door. They waste everyone’s time, moderators included.

That they are published authors means nothing; we've all read books that contribute nothing to the debate, but distract attention from the exploration of the most fruitful areas, even if they top the New York Times' bestsellers list. Such authors should and must be challenged, irrespective of who they are.

I agree with John Simkin - for whom I have great respect - that this Forum has been on a downhill slide for some time. The moderators have done nothing to slow the decline, but actually contributed to it with their one-sided punishments.

If it continues, the loss of one’s membership will be a badge of honour, rather than a slight.

In closing, despite my occasional confrontations with him over evidence and how it is to be interpreted, I won't stay anywhere Jim DiEugenio is unwelcome.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Guest Robert Morrow]

"The worst offenders were members who saw JFK as some Jesus Christ type figure who was killed because he was trying to save the world. Therefore, anyone who suggested that JFK was a flawed individual faced the prospect of venomous attack."

John Kennedy was a compromised sex freak of the highest order, a meth addict so addicted that he wanted his drug dealing meth doctor Max Jacobson to actually *live* in the White House with him, and a rampaging and reckless unhinged serial adulterer. I am convinced that John Kennedy was bisexual as well, which is not often commented on.

Michael Butler supposedly had flings and/or sex orgies with JFK: http://www.orlok.com/hair/holding/prepost/mike/PhotosMB69.html (before JFK became president).

When he was not getting his meth shots, John Kennedy was corrupting teenage girls sexually, practically forcing drugs (poppers) on them and then figuratively pimping them out to his aide Dave Powers and brother Ted Kennedy for sexual favors (see Mimi Alford's accounts). Quite disgusting and quite revealing of John Kennedy.

John Kennedy was also a damn good president because he left office without the world being nuclear incinerated, especially if you live in USSR, China, Cuba and a few American cities. He did pick (under duress) a completely depraved and functional lunatic for Vice President and that was a big reason for his death.

My favor to ask John Simkin is a simple one - if he shuts down Education Forum, fine with me, however please preserve all those thousands of educational posts over the years. These posts combined with the Spartacus encyclopedia are a fabulous educational tool that help many people immensely.

As for the removal of Tom Scully - I support that 100%. Scully is completely unsuited to be moderator with his tyrannical mindset; he is extremely intolerant of other viewpoints and hilariously engages in unending personal attacks while acting as a moderator. Nor should Tom Scully be an Ed Forum member with posting privileges. Most of Tom Scully's posts were a data dump of unintelligible autistic gibberish culled from 60 year old wedding announcements. I would just as soon smoke a cigar in a gas oven rather than read his material.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Robert Morrow]

As for the case of Tom Scully - I support that 100%. Scully is completely unsuited to be moderator with his tyrannical mindset; he is extremely intolerant of other viewpoints and hilariously engages in unending personal attacks while acting as a moderator. Nor should Tom Scully be a Ed Forum member with posting privileges. Most of Tom Scully's posts were a data dump of unintelligible autistic gibberish culled from 60 year old wedding announcements.

I guess this type of personal attack - the type that's directed at Tom and Jim rather than coming from them - is the sort that's going to be allowed under the "new regime" then is it, John?

Tom Scully? Not an Education Forum member, thank God. Nor is Vincent Bugliosi.

[Douglas Caddy]

I support John Simkin's decision.

I have often wondered how many members have quietly resigned from the forum or refrained from active participation because a few members have continually engaged in attacks on others that are juvenile and self-defeating in their nature.

[Thomas Graves]

The imbalance of moderation - letting David Lifton question the mental health of other members, but acing his victims when they respond in kind - is not “moderation;” it is sucking up and fawning of the most egregious sort.

....

That they are published authors means nothing; we've all read books that contribute nothing to the debate, but distract attention from the exploration of the most fruitful areas, even if they top the New York Times' bestsellers list. Such authors should and must be challenged, irrespective of who they are.

I agree with John Simkin - for whom I have great respect - that this Forum has been on a downhill slide for some time. The moderators have done nothing to slow the decline, but actually contributed to it with their one-sided punishments.

THIS. This is spot-on. And it applies to John. The imbalance and unfairness of John's decision is absolutely unbelievable

Dear Robert and Martin,

If that's the case, then perhaps Lifton should be kicked out, too!

Sincerely,

--Tommy

PS Funny, but verbiage like "absolutely unbelievable" reminds me of Fetzer. LOL!

Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

John Simkin - thank you so much for all your efforts in starting and maintaining the forum. So many intelligent comments on this thread, both in support of and against your decision. Its really a shame that people like Scully and DiEugenio resort to personal attacks. As others have pointed out on this post, there are plenty of members who are polite in their discourse but just as divisive.

Like you I have been perplexed by the attacks on Janney, which were relentless. The exchanges between Lifton and DiEugenio are likewise disturbing. I agree with your main point - that disagreements are welcomed, and that personal agendas cannot be avoided, but that attacks should not be allowed. Some members have singled out other posters as using the forum to push their own theories, as if that rises to the same level as a personal attack. I don't agree, even though I find some of those posters annoying.

So it becomes a matter of style more than anything else. Where I do agree with some critics of your decision is that perhaps a clear warning directed at the two individuals might have been good, though in your defense you have warned all of us many times, including recently. Perhaps your decision will serve as a reminder to others who come close to negative attacks to tread more lightly in the future.

[Thomas Graves]

John Simkin - thank you so much for all your efforts in starting and maintaining the forum. So many intelligent comments on this thread, both in support of and against your decision. Its really a shame that people like Scully and DiEugenio resort to personal attacks. As others have pointed out on this post, there are plenty of members who are polite in their discourse but just as divisive.

Like you I have been perplexed by the attacks on Janney, which were relentless. The exchanges between Lifton and DiEugenio are likewise disturbing. I agree with your main point - that disagreements are welcomed, and that personal agendas cannot be avoided, but that attacks should not be allowed. Some members have singled out other posters as using the forum to push their own theories, as if that rises to the same level as a personal attack. I don't agree, even though I find some of those posters annoying.

So it becomes a matter of style more than anything else. Where I do agree with some critics of your decision is that perhaps a clear warning directed at the two individuals might have been good, though in your defense you have warned all of us many times, including recently. Perhaps your decision will serve as a reminder to others who come close to negative attacks to tread more lightly in the future.

Paul,

A very reasonable post!

Question: Do you think John's future warnings (if any are given) should be done privately, or "in public" on the Forum?

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Pat Speer]

What it comes down to, IMO, is that this is, and always has been, John's Forum. That's the reality. He tried to make it an open one, where people could discuss the assassination in an open and civil way. That proved impossible.

John's vision for HIS forum was that it be a place where serious scholars and researchers could discuss the assassination. Members were forced to apply for membership, etc. His vision failed to come to bloom, however, in large part because those most passionate about the JFK assassination are also those most self-righteous about the JFK assassination. Things degraded to the point where some threads amounted to little more than GOTCHA! You're a xxxx! No, I'm not. You're the xxxx!! No, I'm not. You're the xxxx!

My hope is that this sends a message, and that in time Jim and Tom are allowed to return to the forum, and do so...

P.S. One of my favorite threads on this forum was one where I asked Tink Thompson about a mistake he'd made in Six Seconds in Dallas, that had misled his readers. He admitted he'd made a mistake. BINGO. That's all it took. I pointed out a mistake, and he acknowledged it as one. This went smoothly, in part, because we respected each other.

Let's all try to respect each other, and respect ourselves in the process.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Pat Speer

[David Lifton]

I'd ask John to clarify here: this does not mean you cannot disagree or even argue / debate with another member.... but you must do it in a civil fashion.

I do not mind what people's opinions are. They can disagree as much as they want to. All I am asking is that they do not break rule (iv): “Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.”

I think the London Education Forum is a critically important educational resource, and I hope it stays around for a long time. Its akin to an Britannica Encyclopedia on the Kennedy assassination, and I utilize it in just that fashion all the time.

As an author currently immersed in writing a manuscript, I have made a number of friends here, with whom I have had productive side-discussions, via email; and I have also learned new information.

My editor has asked me why I bother to post here, and my reply has been that its often useful to expose ideas and views and see how they are received.

The recent thread on Buell Wesley Frazier is a good example. I don’t think there has ever been a more detailed back and forth on the question of the paper bag, and information posted in connection with that thread led to my learning about a new witness, and revamping a section of my own text.

The recent thread on Oswald—1959 photo—led me to carefully review files and information; and the thread on Priscilla Johnson McMillan (where I have recently made about six posts) is another area where I was able to incorporate my own manuscript research and just post some of it on the forum.

However, I must add that I was not just surprised—but shocked—at the recent behavior of Scully and DiEugenio. Specifically, it has been more than annoying to turn on my computer each morning to see myself the subject of repeated personal and nasty attacks by Tom Scully, as if he is going to take me to the woodshed and teach me a lesson. He has no business being a moderator ---and I have said exactly that.

As for DiEugenio, he has been attacking me and Best Evidence for years. That, I suppose, comes with the territory. But his contemptuous and insulting tone does not belong in any civil discussion; and, as far as I’m concerned, something occurred yesterday which really bothered me. DiEugenio crossed a line—big time—when in a post yesterday (and I don’t know if anyone noticed), but DiEugenio all but directly accused Priscilla McMillan of being connected with those that murdered President Kennedy. I have wondered just how long its going to be before McMillan has her lawyer get involved with DiEugenio and his accusations. If he wants to accuse people in that fashion, then I think he should do it on his on his own website, and not drag the London Forum through the mud.

Recently, he has actually sent me emails aggressively inquiring about my personal finances, and demanding answers, the tone being that if I did not respond to his inquiries, why he might then be posting certain information up on his website. Is that the kind of person that belongs on the London Forum? Or in any public discussion?

IMHO: Getting rid of Scully and DiEugenio is akin to getting rid of two major bullies in the classroom; and sometimes the teacher has to step in and do just that.

Congratulations, John. I support your decision.

DSL

6/9/13; 12:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited June 9, 2013 by David Lifton