JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Gibson Vendettuoli]

And my parents' wishes are that I stay, as long as no photos, phone number, etc., are requested. And if they are requested, I am to hold out as long as possible until that option is no longer necessary, according to them.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Gibson Vendettuoli

[Shanet Clark]

I think the photos we use add to our legitimacy and add a human element which quietly adds substance to our civil discourse, and they also discourage anonymous attacks, deliberate misinformation and reckless disregard for others, which can easily occur if you only see other people online as "cold type."

Once again I support John Simkin in his efforts to maintain our credibility.

I have two suggestions.

Please be very specific when you title a new thread, so it really serves to index that topic.

Also, the long, long, long posts are unbearable and they often relate to some minor argument that is not of general interest.

Please be specific when starting a thread and keep your posts succinct and interesting....people really do turn to us for information, so lets respect them, too.

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr. Simkin,

What if one's parents have an issue with them giving a photo of oneself, for one's personal safety? What shall be done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are under age you had been abide by your parents' wishes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

__________________________________

Gibson

Are you really only 14 and already writing screenplays? I am so glad to see younger people researching this case. This is our job, to leave good solid leads for the next generation of researchers, and attempt to interview every person still alive connected to this case. Never know who just might hold a grain, or wealth of information.

Dawn

[Nancy Eldreth]

Selections and decisions.

Just seeing if I got this picture part to work?

No I didn't get it to work.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Nancy Eldreth

[Terry Mauro]

A photograph helps to provide evidence that they are really that person.

And, as you can see in one of the threads, Denis Morrisette thought I was a guy

for the last couple of years I'd been posting over at Lancer. Must be my tomboy

attitude, being the only girl raised with brothers. LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it is your name, Terry, that made me think you were a man. I'm sorry, I'm French and not still used to all the English first names.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've started using my formal name, Theresa, more these days, to avoid being mistaken again. And, I used to cuss like a sailor, but found that to be a useless form of the English language by which to express oneself.

[John Simkin]

Just seeing if I got this picture part to work?

No I didn't get it to work.

I have done it for you.

[Nancy Eldreth]

I do appreciate that. Thank you, so much!!!

[Richard J. Smith]

"And my parents' wishes are that I stay, as long as no photos, phone number, etc., are requested. And if they are requested, I am to hold out as long as possible until that option is no longer necessary, according to them."

Gibson, you and your parents are absolutely correct. Next thing you know, because of some argument on an on line forum, we'll be asked to publicly provide our address and phone number. I'm glad that John did address other situations in the new forum rules. I for one, came under attack from a "researcher" for being CIA and a "disinfo specialist" because I don't believe and completely disproved the James Files story. This "researcher" demanded I supply personal information about myself so he could be assured I was who I said I was. He demanded of other researchers that they post information that they knew me for who I was. Several of my associates(including Bill Miller, Al Carrier, and Allan Eaglesham) did just that. A year later, he is STILL making accusations that I am John Stockwell, simply because I don't buy his untenable position. Ms Meredith asked in another thread that the bickering stop about what went on at another forum a year ago. True to a certain extent, but IMO she should direct her attention to the one who initiated the attacks, as my response was that the Files scenario was totally thrashed at Lancer by solid research, which generated another personal attack. I agree with John in that researchers take their opinions seriously. Some think of their opinions as fact. When they are confronted with information that makes their position less tenable, they respond with personal attacks instead of evidence.

I don't feel the need to post my picture to prove who I am. People will think what they want. Rest assured I will NEVER post my most personal information so that some crackpot can harrass me at home because I don't accept their opinion as fact.

As an aside to this discussion, 2 members have been booted from JFK Lancer for their incredibly ridiculous postings and 2 others have been suspended for their continuous personal attacks on each other.

This is part of the most recent:

RJS: Regarding the legal issues between the two of you, take it to court and off the forum. As for the constant barrage of "xxxx xxxx" regarding actual issues in the assassination, state your case and let us determine if it's viable or not. If you're questioned by forum members as to inconsistent statements... answer them clearly and concisely. It's difficult to compare 3 page long statements from several different posts in several different threads. And when we ask questions, don't attack us personally(unless of course we say get coded messages from people on TV and suggest we should hire Kreskin). You only make yourself look worse and do nothing for your case.

Response: "Look forward to it all you want RJS or whatever your name is. I still think you are really JRS (John R. Stockwell) but you might not be. You could be just another dummy with a computer. That’s fairly common in forums and newsgroups."

RJS: Can't deal with facts, so you resort to personal attacks and innuendo.

1. I've never met nor communicated with John Stockwell. You can think whatever you want. You know very well who I am, you had me checked out didn't you?? You posted information on me and where I live on this forum(Lancer) a year ago after 6 months of accusing me of being CIA and/or Stockwell during the Files debate because you couldn't deal with the real facts. You've also seen my bio at The Education Forum. You are the 2nd poorest excuse for a researcher I know of, right above XXXXX XXXXXXX. Al hit the nail on the head with his post about you at John's forum, which I reposted in a thread here.

2. I am no dummy. I simply don't believe your so called "evidence". So 99.999% of the JFK researchers in the world must be dummies also, since they don't believe your Files...crap either.

I could care less about your legal problems with XXX XXXXXX. A judge or jury needs to decide this debacle, not me or the others on this or any other forum. Regarding the legal issues between the two of you, take it to court and off the forum. As for the constant barrage of "xxxx xxxx" regarding actual issues in the assassination, state your case and let us determine if it's viable or not. If you're questioned by forum members as to inconsistent statements made by Tosh, Marvin, or each other for that matter, answer them clearly and concisely. It's difficult to compare 3 page long statements from several different posts in several different threads. And when we ask questions, don't attack us personally(unless of course we say get coded messages from people on TV and suggest we should hire Kreskin). You only make yourself look worse and do nothing for your case.

I sincerely hope you run off to John's forum and post the crap you've posted here. Be prepared XXXXXXXX, you'll get the full assault in return. I'm drooling over getting the Files info restored from the forum crash. You looked like such a fool. I'd be happy to do it all over again."

Simply awful on my part wasn't it? But occasionally necessary to respond to condescending, untrue statements that never should have been made in the first place.

RJS

Note: names X'd out by me, not the forum administrators

Edited November 19, 2004 by Richard J. Smith

[Nancy Eldreth]

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

As the old saying goes. Rules are rules.

Maybe, if we see your photo we can know who we are addressing I think is what Mr. Simkin is asking. It is to cut down on those kinds of personal attacks on each other, on the very points you are addressing.

[Richard J. Smith]

"When in Rome do as the Romans do.

As the old saying goes. Rules are rules.

Maybe, if we see your photo we can know who we are addressing I think is what Mr. Simkin is asking. It is to cut down on those kinds of personal attacks on each other, on the very points you are addressing."

Currently, the photo isn't a rule, it's a suggestion. And I don't think a photo will stop overly aggressive or abusive behavior. Nor will it stop someone from making absurd posts.

If people want to post their photo, great. If they don't, that's OK too. I just don't think it should be a requirement. More than likely, I'll end up putting up a pic. That way you'll be able to see what your nemesis looks like. You can blow it up and throw darts at it.

[John Simkin]

Currently, the photo isn't a rule, it's a suggestion. And I don't think a photo will stop overly aggressive or abusive behavior. Nor will it stop someone from making absurd posts.

That is right. It has to be remembered that the JFK Forum is only part of a much larger forum for teachers throughout the world. We have found that people are far less aggressive in their posts when they have a photograph as an avatar. We believe it leads to a more pleasant, comradely atmosphere. I was hoping that the same thing would happen with the JFK Forum. However, it is possible that JFK researchers are a breed apart and will not be influenced by this attempt at “humanizing” the forum.

It should be pointed out that so far only Gibson has refused to have his photograph as an avatar (and he has a good reason to take this view). The reason some people have not posted one yet is that they do not have a scanner. In these cases they are sending me a photograph by post. Others are arranging for digital photographs to be taken. In time, all members of this forum, except Gibson, are likely to have avatars. Let us hope it does lead to a more friendly approach to the subject. Anyway, it is worth a try.

[Bill Miller]

If people want to post their photo, great. If they don't, that's OK too. I just don't think it should be a requirement. More than likely, I'll end up putting up a pic. That way you'll be able to see what your nemesis looks like.

I don't think I saw where the pic has to be a recent one, so maybe a baby photo will suffice.

[Nancy Eldreth]

Bill,

I actually thought of that.

At least they would be saying ah isn't she cute.

I: am laughing hard, now.

For me it works, and it is more enjoyable to see who I am speaking to rather than just words and out into thin air. We are people and should be treated with respect.

I am glad now I have posted mine up.

I did receive one side complement and that makes a person feel good.

After all what do we have to hide?

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Yes a photo would be nice. No photo might be nicer.

Also it was great to read Clint Eastwood's posts.

Good to know Dirty Harry is keeping an eye on us all.

"Do ya feel lucky **** .....Well do ya?!"

EBC

Edited November 24, 2004 by Eugene B. Connolly

[John Simkin]

Yes a photo would be nice. No photo might be nicer.

Also it was great to read Clint Eastwood's posts.

Good to know Dirty Harry is keeping an eye on us all.

Don Roberdeau has emailed me explaining why he cannot show a photograph of himself. His reasons are understandable and is allowed to continue to post. What is your excuse?