James R Gordon Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Over the last few weeks the administrators have become aware of the weight that the present forum is required to carry. The JFK Assassination Debate forum is clearly the most popular of the forums on offer and it is understandable that all discussion is now fed into it. It is understandable why this has occurred, however we feel the time has come when we really need to tidy up the forum. A fellow member suggested we might think about widening the present forum in order to better focus member posts. We agree and therefore we propose the creation of a new JFK forum category into which this forum and five new forums are placed. The five new forum are:- JFK Research This is a seriously overdue venue for new discussion. This forum is limited to new research and analysis, documents, testimony, oral history, and physical or photographic evidence. Threads would be limited to new findings specifically - and narrowly - related to the JFK assassination. Note the imperative description is “New Research and Analysis, Documents, Testimony, Oral History, and Physical or Photographic evidence.” This forum is not be considered another avenue for the present debate that continues on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. The intent of this forum is allow members to share genuinely new research or access to new documents and other resources. JFK Questions We see this Forum being helpful for newcomers. It will allow them to post questions about resources, previous investigations, evidence and "factoids" which they have found on the internet or in books and which they want to have validated or exposed. JFK Discussion We see this Forum being limited to threads discussing the Kennedy administration, personalities of the era and theories/speculation/opinions pertaining to his assassination. It is becoming apparent that this is a growing interest on the forum and now deserves its own forum. There are number of present threads on the JFK Assassination debate forum that would be ideal for this new forum. JFK Book Discussions This Forum is limited to posts on specific books or specific author Deep Politics We see this Forum being limited to threads discussing broader topics ranging beyond just JFK and can include opinions and dialogs on both historical and contemporary events. The False Flag thread would be an ideal candidate for this area. We feel that these kinds of threads - interesting though they are - need a better home than the present forum. JFK Assassination Debate:- With this kind of reorganisation we see our present forum returning to it’s primary function as the place where a more generalised JFK assassination discussion can take place. Moderation:- For understandable reasons members may innocently choose the wrong forum for their topic. As a consequence, in the early days, the administrators may need to move topics threads into their correct Forum. Hopefully that will not happen too often. But the point about moving topic threads - should that indeed be necessary - is that this forum needs a tidy up and clearer focus on topics. Fellow members opinions:- We would be very interested in what fellow members think about this proposed action. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 If separate forums are created I believe it will be best to do so by topic or subject matter, in order to facilitate searching and to foster lively and diverse discussion. For example, forum topics might include: JFK, Oswald, Dealey Plaza, Cover-Up, Mafia, CIA, Secret Service, Jack Ruby, Edwin Walker, Suspicious Characters, Witnesses, Photographs and Films, and so on. For beginners and others there might be: Overview of the Case, and Different Theories of the Case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Jon, I understand the point you are making. However to do so would create a very unwieldy Forum. It is not impossible to increase the forum set above five, but the number of forums you suggest would be - I think - too much. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Kathy, Ideally the research area ought to be reserved for contributions like a written paper. That may not be always possible. The suggestion, from the member who suggested this, was I believe along those lines. The point being made, as I understand it, is that the research area is not a replication of the present JFK Debate Forum. As you are aware, this may require mediation from the administrators. I understood that these new forums are an addition to what already exists and allows a better streaming of the variety that is at present in the JFK Debate forum. As you suggest we are probably talking of minimum movement and hoping that fellow members will, themselves, begin to disperse topics into the appropriate forums. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Over the last few weeks the administrators have become aware of the weight that the present forum is required to carry. The JFK Assassination Debate forum is clearly the most popular of the forums on offer and it is understandable that all discussion is now fed into it. It is understandable why this has occurred, however we feel the time has come when we really need to tidy up the forum. A fellow member suggested we might think about widening the present forum in order to better focus member posts. We agree and therefore we propose the creation of a new JFK forum category into which this forum and five new forums are placed. The five new forum are:- JFK Research This is a seriously overdue venue for new discussion. This forum is limited to new research and analysis, documents, testimony, oral history, and physical or photographic evidence. Threads would be limited to new findings specifically - and narrowly - related to the JFK assassination. Note the imperative description is “New Research and Analysis, Documents, Testimony, Oral History, and Physical or Photographic evidence.” This forum is not be considered another avenue for the present debate that continues on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. The intent of this forum is allow members to share genuinely new research or access to new documents and other resources. JFK Questions We see this Forum being helpful for newcomers. It will allow them to post questions about resources, previous investigations, evidence and "factoids" which they have found on the internet or in books and which they want to have validated or exposed. JFK Discussion We see this Forum being limited to threads discussing the Kennedy administration, personalities of the era and theories/speculation/opinions pertaining to his assassination. It is becoming apparent that this is a growing interest on the forum and now deserves its own forum. There are number of present threads on the JFK Assassination debate forum that would be ideal for this new forum. JFK Book Discussions This Forum is limited to posts on specific books or specific author Deep Politics We see this Forum being limited to threads discussing broader topics ranging beyond just JFK and can include opinions and dialogs on both historical and contemporary events. The False Flag thread would be an ideal candidate for this area. We feel that these kinds of threads - interesting though they are - need a better home than the present forum. JFK Assassination Debate:- With this kind of reorganisation we see our present forum returning to it’s primary function as the place where a more generalised JFK assassination discussion can take place. Moderation:- For understandable reasons members may innocently choose the wrong forum for their topic. As a consequence, in the early days, the administrators may need to move topics threads into their correct Forum. Hopefully that will not happen too often. But the point about moving topic threads - should that indeed be necessary - is that this forum needs a tidy up and clearer focus on topics. Fellow members opinions:- We would be very interested in what fellow members think about this proposed action. James Too many categories IMHO. You'll be creating a lot more work and stress for yourself and other moderators because you'll have to decide which category to put each and every post in, and the contributors might individually or collectively disagree with you about where you put things. Maybe three or four categories would be better for everybody concerned? IMHO the best kind of learning is done in a kind of a limited (and controlled) "interdisciplinary" setting. I do agree that the "deep politics" one should be a separate category from all of the other ones because otherwise you'll end up with JFK assassination CTers (like myself) arguing with others not only about the JFK assassination, but "9/11", the "fighting going on in the Ukraine," "the death of Marilyn Monroe," "the assassination of RFK" (which I believe was a conspiracy), "the Trilateral Commission" "UFO's", "the Illuminati", "the Bilderbast Group" (spelling?), "the Federal Reserve", "Bohemian Grove", "the Mafia", etc,... Oh! -- did I mention UFOs? -- and how they all, you know, TIE IN WITH the JFK Assassination. And, of course, the most important question of all: "What sort of green cheese is the moon is made of, anyway?" --Tommy PS May I suggest that you have a special "Harvey and Lee" one? (Or is it "Lee and Harvey"? Dang-- I never can keep them suckers straight.) Edited January 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I am thinking that this should be revisited. I think there should be several equal sub forums in the JFK Assassination debate. I see that an effort was made to do this and it does not appear to have had the hoped-for results. So, may I sgguest.... First: and most importantly, there should be a subforum exclusively for published and peer-reviewed researchers and authors, to the exclusion of folks like myself who have an interested in the subject but are not satisfied with reading alone and feel the need to ask questions and posit thoughts and theories. Second: basically the existing JFK Assassination Debate forum for all members. Thirdly: A photo analysis sub-forum. I'll demure from giving a dtetailed explanation as to why. Fourthly: As you have already provided, a research forum. With the above suggested divisions, bouncing from one sub-forum to another, for all content, would be a common excercise, and works such as those recently presented by Sandy and Tommy wouldn't be necessarily lost in the weeds. -Lastly, I'll note that it was suggested, favorably by John S., in another thread, that a large number of stickies reduces the exposure of the forum page to search engines. That suggestion was followed-up upon and the report was that there was more traffic. It seems that the number of stickies has, again, grown to a number greater that that which was present before that solution was suggested. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) I failed to mention a major point that I meant to make. The exclusive, authoritive, peer-reviewed, published, researchers forum, if it were to be maintained with a collegiate decorum, might serve to guide the non-exclusive forum in how to interact. I would think that researchers who want to "move-up" to that forum would put on their Sunday-Clothes and use their parliamentary abilities, or affronts as the case may be, to open that door to themselves. Indeed, the greater part of members, not being included in that forum would reduce the need for real researchers and authors to constantly clean-up after uninitiated, inexperienced and careless folks, such as myself. Cheers, Michael Edited March 24, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Michael, It seems to me that breaking the forum up to multiple main pages would mean only two or three active threads for each. And at least for me, constantly changing pages to find a topic that's been posted to. (I have a variety of interests.) As for maintaining good behavior, I wish that that were done on every thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Michael, It seems to me that breaking the forum up to multiple main pages would mean only two or three active threads for each. And at least for me, constantly changing pages to find a topic that's been posted to. (I have a variety of interests.) As for maintaining good behavior, I wish that that were done on every thread. Thanks for your reply. What do you think of the "exclusive researcher-author forum"? Do you see any benefit in separating "photo-analysis" forums or "research" forums from the general "Debate" forum? Did you have any qualms about your own threads wherein you you requested that there be no replies to it until you were done with your presentation? Do you recognize that you and Tommy have been flooding the home page, and thereby burying other threads? Do you see any redeeming benefits to my suggestions? Where is Tommy? Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) On 1/21/2015 at 8:21 AM, James R Gordon said: Over the last few weeks the administrators have become aware of the weight that the present forum is required to carry. The JFK Assassination Debate forum is clearly ... ------------ I would be very interested in what fellow members think about this proposed action. James I saw James Grodon come and go without an ack, so I figured I would quote-him-up once and drop the subject. Cheers, Michael Edited March 24, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Clark said: Thanks for your reply. What do you think of the "exclusive researcher-author forum"? I don't think any member should be excluded from it. Do you see any benefit in separating "photo-analysis" forums or "research" forums from the general "Debate" forum? Virtually no benefit, because threads with photo-analysis usually have non-photo analysis as well. Did you have any qualms about your own threads wherein you you requested that there be no replies to it until you were done with your presentation? One deficiency in forum software is that it doesn't inherently allow a person to write a post that requires more than one sitting to complete. But it's not a big problem. Soon Tommy and I will no longer be requesting others to wait before replying. We had to do that just to create our framework for a huge project. It's not a big deal. Do you recognize that you and Tommy have been flooding the home page, and thereby burying other threads? I will speak for myself. No I don't recognize that I've been flooding the home page because it's not true. I just looked and only one of my threads is currently on the home page. And the only reason my thread is there is because Micah Mileto recently posted to it. The last time I posted to it was December 2016. And I have only two threads on page 2. The reason I have two threads there is because I'm a productive member. (I think it's ironic that I sit here defending myself of your charge against me, while I myself am a victim of what you charge.) (Note that I am not complaining that my threads have been pushed to page 2.) Let me repeat what I said because you have made quite an unbelievable charge... I currently own ZERO threads on the home page that I'm actually posting to. That is hardly "flooding" it. Now, I will grant that at one time not too long ago I and Tommy had three threads going on the home page. The reason for the three topics was that it was an ambitious undertaking, and we attacked it like wildfire. It quickly resulted in a major finding that we are currently documenting. In my opinion, that is something to be applauded, not criticized. I mean, I could understand the criticism if it was something we did all the time. But it was a one-time deal. That the posts remained on the home page for a few days indicated that we were producing results. (And BTW, remember, that was three topics for two people... only 1 1/2 topics each on the home page. Is that flooding??) Do you see any redeeming benefits to my suggestions? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you would prefer to have different categories of topics so that you can focus on the ones that interest you. If so, that's fine. As for myself, I can easily remember which threads I'm interested in just be looking at the thread names. So I'm fine with the way the forum is now. But if most people want to switch to the method you propose, then that would be good for the forum. Where is Tommy? Beats me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I'm lurking. Oops, I just flooded the home page with another post. I think all Harvey and Lee and the two Marguerites long-term doppelganger stuff should be somewhere else altogether. Edited March 24, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks Sandy, the word is "attack" is unfortunately used too often, perhaps it's just for lack of a better word. I definitely appreciate what you do. I have noticed that you have started some threads in the "research" area and I think that it seems like they are out on "the back 40". my suggestions were meant to look for a way around that. As cheesy as it seems, I am usually focused on the front page., kind of forgetting what is beyond. I am guessing, and I think I have heard others say the same thing. So, yeah, if something interests you, go find it, the front page is only notional. But, actually, it isn't. It's like the front page of a newspaper; it's a big deal. Thank for your thoughts on the "exclusive" section. Personally, after looking over the history of the forum, I would really like to see some of the most esteemed members return. I can see why they may have gone. This was at one time an exclusive forum. Now it is not exclusive and a lot of great minds and writers are gone because of that, IMO. It would be nice to have them back, even if they are huddled in their own corner. Thanks for being generous, I have obviously not been sensitive enough in what I meant to say. I didn't mean to call you out as much as I wanted to say that the front page is getting squashed for space. To be sure, I have a bias against photo-analysis threads since I pretty-much refuse to enter that fray. It has its own life, and takes on a different, contentious character that I think unnecessarily spreads to other threads. I'll break off for now. thanks for your input and cheers, Michael Edited March 24, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Clark said: Do you recognize that you and Tommy have been flooding the home page, and thereby burying other threads? I just checked Michael, and there are a grand total of 5 threads on the home page due to your bumping them there! Are you aware that you have been flooding the home page, and thereby burying other threads? LOL! Too funny! (BTW I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your bumping those threads. I just thinks it is exceedingly ironic in light of your charge against me!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Just now, Sandy Larsen said: I just checked Michael, and there are a grand total of 5 threads on the home page due to your bumping them there! Are you aware that you have been flooding the home page, and thereby burying other threads? LOL! Too funny! (BTW I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your bumping those threads. I just thinks it is exceedingly ironic in light of your charge against me!) I've been busy tonight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now