Forum Rules

[Greg Parker]

If I am to be held accountable regarding forum rules, then so should everyone else -- not least of all moderators.

Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members:-

Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may loose their posting privileges or indeed be banned.

From Don Jeffries at DPF

Greg Parker's tenacious efforts to prove there was only one Lee Harvey Oswald are reminiscent of what we see from lone nutters. Indeed, his magical re-growing tonsils are comparable to magic bullets and bunched-up coats.

Parker is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I don't really understand this crusade of his. Did he have a run-in with Armstrong at some point? This really seems personal.

Even without Armstrong's theory, the Oswald impersonations represent some of the clearest examples of conspiratorial behavior. There is no rational reason to launch this Warren Commission-style debunking effort.

From David Josephs at DPF

Anyone that can show him for the shill he is will be attacked.

Anyone with actual evidence that shows him to be wrong - attacked

When/If he ever gets to Oswald in his books about Oswald - we'll have ourselves a field day...

Writing about Korea and warfare under the guise of an Oswald history is just his convuluted way.

I don't think it has to do with JA but that he thought all along that noone knew enough about H&L to argue with him...

I do. and I will continue to show Parker for the cretin he is... Thanks for having my back Don and the handful of others who easily see thru Parker's fog.

DJ

From Dawn Meredith at DPF

Oh I did not realize he abandoned the "Lewis Oswalt" at the car dealership. I can't keep up with his theories. I posted at Ed forum yesterday for the first time in ages. He replied, in his usual condescending manner, referring to my "busy schedule"- as if lawyers who work full time at NOT busy- and made a reference to "Albert"- I guess that means you and asked about a "Brian Doyle." (Am I supposed to know a "Brian Doyle"??? Is that your alleged "double" Albert? ) Hmmm, so CD was right all along eh??

So this is my question: Does he believe there were no LHO lookalikes, in his massive effort to rid the world of the concept of Harvey and Lee? I did not have time to read that long thread over there, but I did see some posts that seem to imply this.

And was it the real LHO at the firing range too? (Thereby setting himself up as the patsy to be killed. Now that's "research". )

It seems to me also that David's 72 hour suspension got discounted. What for? For the above good behavior?

Did Don have anything to do with the reprieve?

[James R Gordon]

Greg,

I will not get into a debate on this issue, however since I locked the "Behaviour" post, I will comment on this post.

Regarding David Joseph. I released him. I saw him logged onto the forum last night and since he only had a few hours left I decided to let him in. In addition David was not benched because of the kind of post you highlight above. His was a much more serious offence.

Regarding the Dawn Meredith post, I believe it was before my post. Second it was essentially sarcasm. That would never have been an offending post You employed a similar tone in post 56 on the Walker thread.

I am aware of the debate between you and Don Jeffreys and I am following it very closely.

I am also following very closely debate on the Walker thread and I have already hidden one post I felt was goading you.

As a general observation I find the temperature on the forum has greatly reduced since I made that post.

I monitor all posts and follow a number of people three or four times daily. My work requires constant use of my computer, so I constantly on the Forum and very posts will now get past my scrutiny.

Although I have not announced it I have adapted the change of rules I posted.

If not serious enough to remove privileges or if if appears the member is goading another member I will hide the offending post. I have done that a few times since I posted the rule change.

If more serious I will remove posting privileges. For how long will depend on the offence.

Lastly - and most seriously - I will remove a members membership.

As I announced, all of this will take place without recourse to the member.

And finally, I have been closely watching your posting Greg. I would like to point out that I am aware you have not changed your position, but I also note that you are much more courteous. And to be fair not all you have conversed with have been equally courteous.

James

[Steven Gaal]

That you guys manage to turn that into "evidence" of two different people is emblematic of your entire sick and sorry mindset. // PARKER

3,097 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Australia

Posted Today, 02:58 AM

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&p=301364

=================

I think the above is rude IMHO. STEVEN GAAL

Edited April 25, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[James R Gordon]

Dealt with.

James

[Guest Mark Valenti]

James, I'm glad to be part of these forums and I'm grateful for the chance to explore challenging ideas. You and your team have done a lot of work to create an environment where that can happen. I just want to add my two pence: As long as the person who is on the receiving end of a barb can respond, I feel like it's okay to allow a natural give-and-take to evolve. Readers can always tell who's blowing smoke and who's making rational points, even though they may be couched in objectionable terms. I've seen many of these verbal fisticuffs go nowhere, and eventually one of the participants throws in the towel, realizing they're at am impasse. But along the way there are often revelatory bits and pieces that may not have emerged, had it not been for the passions that became inflamed.

I guess my bottom line is, I despise the forum cowards who attack personalities without having the courage to face a response from their targets. Those are the weakling intellects who can only lash out and then hide behind the skirts of their own membership walls. Here, at the Ed and at Duncan's, we face our opponents on an open field and everyone has their say. It may not always be pleasant but at least it's not gutless. That said, I will respect the wishes of those who go the extra mile and actually run this forum in the way they choose to.

[James R Gordon]

I agree with much of what you say Mark.

The basis of the new rule is that members are respectful and courteous to each other. Provided members follow that basic rule, which is what underpins the new behaviour rules, then active and vibrant discussion is welcomed.

"Verbal fisticuffs" we cannot - and will not - allow to happen. It just causes mayhem. This site is full of very knowledgeable and experienced members. It is not rocket science to request that debate is carried in a manner through which no-one feels offended.

The administrators do not feel it is important that members agree - but we do insist that disagreement is carried in a manner that reflects the good name of the Forum.

James

[Pat Speer]

I seem to be missing something. If members of this forum are bad mouthing a member of this forum on another forum, that should have no effect on their membership here. Similarly, any attempt to make this a forum issue by re-posting the negative comments posted on this other forum on this forum should not be allowed.

Perhaps the complaints of Don and others can be presented in a non-specific manner. We've been through this many times, but it always seems to disintegrate into specifics.

The way I see it, there are two schools of thought in the research community. One believes we should collect as many arguments against the official theories as possible, and run full force forward using every bit of it as ammunition. The other school holds that we should constantly be questioning the arguments of those on both sides of the conspiracy/no-conspiracy fence.

I certainly fall into the second school. In my own experience, moreover, I have found conspiracy theorists whose conclusions have been called into question to be just as, if not more, obnoxious and insulting as the single-assassin theorists on the other side of the conspiracy/no conspiracy divide. While I have received several veiled death threats from the single-assassin theorist community, mostly from a former poster on the McAdams Forum who finally went away, I have received far more "how dare you--you're so stupid" type emails from those sharing my conclusion there was a conspiracy.

James is correct, IMO. No matter how we FEEL about someone's area of research, we should always play nice. When DVP and I disagree, which is most of the time, we usually tell each other "You are being silly" or "Your conclusions are embarrassing nonsense." We settled into this groove years ago, and it seems to work for both of us. I suggest others do the same. It may not be as satisfying when you write your post, but it leads to a more congenial atmosphere, and a better reading experience for those perusing the forum, with no dog, or cat, in the fight.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

Obvious.

In response for having posted some of the things said about me and others on his forum, GP finds it appropriate to go eye-for-an-eye. So do I.

But I was wrong for posting specific posts themselves from his place. All one need do is go and jump in anywhere and start reading posts.

I am disappointed that GP, who has contributed much to many of our understandings of the events related to that 30 seconds, cannot see that while his rebuttals may indeed be valid, they are not provably so and in fact require some bending and twisting to see how all the difference actions and activities are caused by the excuses he makes.

GP in turn feels the same need of contortion to see H&L as a viable theory which fits the facts...

If the evidence was not so repeatedly contradicting in so many different areas of their lives, that it could not work would be more apparent. It isn't.

The conflicts are there... so while we are willing to explain away the conspiracy and cover-up to daring and expert planning at a level that leaves a patsy killed and people asking questions for 50 years... you are so sure about the inner workings of Angleton's CI unit or something (Military) intelligence related that you can say all these conflicts are benign? That during the height of the cold war with plans like Northwoods being offered, the Oswald Project, or a defector program, or a Soviet plant that is turned back on them.. is not part of brainstorming?. if done well, there would be no evidence... or that would still be buried.

I can't see all these activities and conflicts as benign Greg. And neither can you.

H&L requires more effort than most will even take to follow and yet you work so hard to try and negate it with generalities and percentages

One can feel the hairs on your neck standing on end - why all the hostility???

Obvious?

Is it beyond subjective... like a badge, or a test to stay leader of the group who create nicknames. IDK. Seems to me you're better than that.

How about some positive ads for what Parker thinks is going on and why? Shed some light using evidence and example and see how it does on its own...

Oswald is an enigma... you're working on him extensively... yet your arguments are same ole...

seems you have nothing to share with us but "you're wrong" rinse and repeat

===============

So, is the excuse for this following info that she is making it up and never saw a Lee Oswald? or what?

Anna Lewis says Feb 1962 is when see meets Lee Oswald... with ample opportunity to cut, retake, and get it right... she repeats, Jan-Apr 1962....

How wrong do we need her to be? 1963 doesn't work either. this is evidence offered for the existence of Marina's husband in New Orleans in Feb 1962.

Oswald was in Minsk with his wife who was giving birth to their first child.

===============

Edited April 25, 2015 by David Josephs

[Don Jeffries]

I just want to clarify that what I said about Greg Parker on a DPF thread is no different from what I've said here directly to him. The inference is that I went to a comfortable setting and talked behind his back. I hope that anyone who has read our previous discussions realizes that this is simply not the case.

I commend James for trying to keep civility here. We've battled over this issue many times in the past. It is a fine line between what Mark reasonably calls the give-and-take that is necessary for all good debate, and more heated discussions that turn ugly and aren't productive. We ought to be able to discuss anything without resorting to juvenile behavior.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have no trouble maintaining a civil tone in discussions on this forum.

Ah, who am I kidding; to be honest, I have to work very hard at resisting the temptation to respond in a nasty manner. In fact, it is a good thing we are all separated by the Internet, as there are a couple of members I likely would have punched in the head by this point in time.

That being said, James is right, of course. When things are allowed to degenerate into mudslinging and insults, the exchange of ideas ends there, too. Also, many other members, not involved in the fight, will quit posting on that thread, and their contributions are lost, as well.

Something I would like Greg to consider. I was banned from his forum for the most groundless of reasons, and mainly because another member on his forum threatened to leave unless I was removed. This member, of course, now denies he ever threatened this. Good thing I saved a few of those posts, eh?

Was this unjust? To be quite frank, I don't really know or care. The point of the matter is that, although I could spend the rest of my life bad mouthing Greg and his members on other forums, I choose not to do so, simply because I believe I am better than that, and will not lower myself to such levels.

[Jon G. Tidd]

I think of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. They were men of the Enlightenment. They argued about individual nature and the nature of government. James Madison was persuaded to change his initial view that the Constitution needed no explicit limits on the power of the central government to believing such limits were needed. Hence, he backed the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. The foundation of U.S. constitutional law.

These men of the Enlightenment argued intellectually, with passion, but never personally.

I suppose this is the ideal of this site. Arguing intellectually, with passion, but never personally. I can buy this.

[Vanessa Loney]

Greg,

I will not get into a debate on this issue, however since I locked the "Behaviour" post, I will comment on this post.

Regarding David Joseph. I released him. I saw him logged onto the forum last night and since he only had a few hours left I decided to let him in. In addition David was not benched because of the kind of post you highlight above. His was a much more serious offence.

Regarding the Dawn Meredith post, I believe it was before my post. Second it was essentially sarcasm. That would never have been an offending post You employed a similar tone in post 56 on the Walker thread.

I am aware of the debate between you and Don Jeffreys and I am following it very closely.

I am also following very closely debate on the Walker thread and I have already hidden one post I felt was goading you.

As a general observation I find the temperature on the forum has greatly reduced since I made that post.

I monitor all posts and follow a number of people three or four times daily. My work requires constant use of my computer, so I constantly on the Forum and very posts will now get past my scrutiny.

Although I have not announced it I have adapted the change of rules I posted.

If not serious enough to remove privileges or if if appears the member is goading another member I will hide the offending post. I have done that a few times since I posted the rule change.

If more serious I will remove posting privileges. For how long will depend on the offence.

Lastly - and most seriously - I will remove a members membership.

As I announced, all of this will take place without recourse to the member.

And finally, I have been closely watching your posting Greg. I would like to point out that I am aware you have not changed your position, but I also note that you are much more courteous. And to be fair not all you have conversed with have been equally courteous.

James

James

Let's be honest here. Are we really talking about civility and good manners on here or is it something else that is exercising some members?

Because if we are talking about civility and manners then I would wonder why someone like Mr Milch is allowed to make comments about women that are not only way off topic but are completely inappropriate for a public forum and more suited to the front bar in an Aussie pub during the time of the 6 O'clock swill.

I would also question why Mr Josephs had a shortened suspension when I did not get the same courtesy despite repeatedly asking to come back on. Even though I had been re-suspended for questioning a suspension which was not valid in the first place. My initial suspension was simply for being a member of ROKC. I had not been derogatory about anyone.

Is it really EF's goal to allow free access on here to all sorts of unsubstantiated views which only serve to discredit the entire assassination research community while at the same time blocking those who are conducting new research in important areas but who have a robust debating style? I shouldn't need to remind you that you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Obviously it is your forum and your rules but they do not seem to be applied consistently and the bias appears to be against those who question theories that some members of EF have a vested interest in and also against members of ROKC. The worst offender of all in your eyes appears to be an ROKCer who also questions your vested interests.

So really what is your agenda here?

[Vanessa Loney]

Vanessa,

I would really like you to send me a report of the post(s) where you state that a forum member was posting inappropriately.If that is true, it needs to be addressed.

Also, James told us he apologized to you for his action in suspending you. I take it that it wasn't sufficient?

Is it really EF's goal to allow free access on here to all sorts of unsubstantiated views which only serve to discredit the entire assassination research community while at the same time blocking those who are conducting new research in important areas but who have a robust debating style? I shouldn't need to remind you that you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

We usually allow folk to express their opinion on JFK matters, but also allow others to criticize. This is supposed to be done with civility. So what I see you saying is that if someone has new research, but is, as you say, robust in his/her debate, that this should be allowed because of the research?

I disagree. BUT, I also disagree with some other folk who react to the robusity(is that a word?), and continually justify their position by an explanation of why they responded in the manner they did, and somehow, it is supposed to let the audience believe it was a natural outcome because they were so put upon.

Additionally, we also have a few Here Pot, Here Kettle folk who probably don't even see that they do the same things the people they fault do, but it is very evident from the outside lookin' in.

I don't know anything about any agenda. I believe James is frustrated. We are trying to provide a Forum for discussion, and we get people who feel entitled to disregard rules. We have made mistakes, and we are trying to correct them. I don't know what else to say.

This forum is supposed to be an archive, so the information here can be available to the future generations. That is why it is important to have the back and forth, and to discuss a myriad of theories whether they have much merit, or are lacking in substance. People may judge the rightness or incorrectness of a position by what someone wrote here. We think that important enough to try to present something that researchers of the future can use. We want it preserved in more of an historical sense, and all of this makes it difficult.

Vanessa,

I would really like you to send me a report of the post(s) where you state that a forum member was posting inappropriately.If that is true, it needs to be addressed.

Also, James told us he apologized to you for his action in suspending you. I take it that it wasn't sufficient?

Is it really EF's goal to allow free access on here to all sorts of unsubstantiated views which only serve to discredit the entire assassination research community while at the same time blocking those who are conducting new research in important areas but who have a robust debating style? I shouldn't need to remind you that you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

We usually allow folk to express their opinion on JFK matters, but also allow others to criticize. This is supposed to be done with civility. So what I see you saying is that if someone has new research, but is, as you say, robust in his/her debate, that this should be allowed because of the research?

I disagree. BUT, I also disagree with some other folk who react to the robusity(is that a word?), and continually justify their position by an explanation of why they responded in the manner they did, and somehow, it is supposed to let the audience believe it was a natural outcome because they were so put upon.

Additionally, we also have a few Here Pot, Here Kettle folk who probably don't even see that they do the same things the people they fault do, but it is very evident from the outside lookin' in.

I don't know anything about any agenda. I believe James is frustrated. We are trying to provide a Forum for discussion, and we get people who feel entitled to disregard rules. We have made mistakes, and we are trying to correct them. I don't know what else to say.

This forum is supposed to be an archive, so the information here can be available to the future generations. That is why it is important to have the back and forth, and to discuss a myriad of theories whether they have much merit, or are lacking in substance. People may judge the rightness or incorrectness of a position by what someone wrote here. We think that important enough to try to present something that researchers of the future can use. We want it preserved in more of an historical sense, and all of this makes it difficult.

Thanks for your response Kathy.

This is what I do not understand about EF. You are prepared to ban posters due to colourful language but you allow all sorts of unsubstantiated claims to be made on here. I assume that some of you are educators. Would you seriously allow any of your students to get away with some of the nonsense that gets spouted on here?

Nonsense that I cannot even name and posters that I cannot name for fear that I too will be banned or suspended. As you have recently done again to Mr Parker and Mr Graves. Can I ask what they did this time to merit this? James has acknowledged that Mr Parker has been more courteous and others have been less so to him. What has he done to merit banning this time?

You want the EF to be an archive for researchers but you are not providing any sort of peer review role on the issue of quality except where it comes to bad language. Truly Kathy, if you want to preserve something for the use of future researchers then I suggest you focus more on the content and less on the style. EF have a warning points system on here. Why don't you use it to award warning points to those who are making baseless claims that discredit the whole research community? If free speech is your concern then why draw the line at colourful language but not baseless nonsense?

In regards to James and my previous banning and suspension I did not raise it again to complain about it. I raised it to demonstrate evidence of bias on here which is what my post was all about. There appears to be a bias against ROKCers and particularly against Mr Parker who cannot say xxxxe on here without getting banned, compared to other members who can maintain the earth is flat without providing any evidence for it at all and are allowed to continue ad nauseum. Where are your priorities?

As for Mr Milch's comments about women - how about the one referring to strippers and their tassels. Hardly suitable for a public forum.

I've also been in discussions with JG about the comments on Altgens 6 being removed from the Prayer Man thread and put on the Altgens thread. And yet they are still there after more than a week. But Mr Parker's comments disappear without a trace in a matter of minutes.

I do not mean to be rude to either you or James, Kathy but really where do want to take EF? Do you want it to be a place for collaborative research that many of us can contribute to or do you want it to be a place where those who may have an agenda to discredit the assassination research community are allowed free reign?

[John Dolva]

IMO : Generally the person who has the right to control a topic content is the original poster and if they default on that by not acting on it no-one else does instead and no-one should presume to do so. Sure, request something but if there is no consensus: drop it. Start another topic. I don't want to see any single person dictating to me what should or should not be on the forum irrespective of what I think is nonsense or not. There will always be tangents, some shortlived others not. There have been long topics where divergent topics coexist fine. If you want only your judgement as to what should and should not be posted to be a decider, forget it. You could always start your own forum and make those decisions. The present management is in a stage of evolution and are involved and engaging with a set of fundamental guidelines. Whatever they decide as being the rules are the rules, period. I think attempting to be polite in trying circumstances is a good thing to experience. Good for the soul. If you CAN NOT argue something you feel you are right about WITHOUT expletives do you really have an argument? Is it really one worth making? What does rudeness ADD to an argument that makes it better? I doubt it adds anything that makes it more persuasive. I suspect rather it detracts. It tells more about the person doing so than anything which basically is something I'm not interested in.

edit typo

Edited April 26, 2015 by John Dolva

[Vanessa Loney]

IMO : Generally the person who has the right to control a topic content is the original poster and if they default on that by not acting on it no-one else does instead and no-one should presume to do so. Sure, request something but if there is no consensus: drop it. Start another topic. I don't want to see any single person dictating to me what should or should not be on the forum irrespective of what I think is nonsense or not. There will always be tangents, some shortlived others not. There have been long topics where divergent topics coexist fine. If you want only your judgement as to what should and should not be posted to be a decider, forget it. You could always start your own forum and make those decisions. The present management is in a stage of evolution and are involved and engaging with a set of fundamental guidelines. Whatever they decide as being the rules are the rules, period. I think attempting to be polite in trying circumstances is a good thing to experience. Good for the soul. If you CAN NOT argue something you feel you are right about WITHOUT expletives do you really have an argument? Is it really one worth making? What does rudeness ADD to an argument that makes it better? I doubt it adds anything that makes it more persuasive. I suspect rather it detracts. It tells more about the person doing so than anything which basically is something I'm not interested in.

edit typo

IMO : Generally the person who has the right to control a topic content is the original poster and if they default on that by not acting on it no-one else does instead and no-one should presume to do so. Sure, request something but if there is no consensus: drop it. Start another topic. I don't want to see any single person dictating to me what should or should not be on the forum irrespective of what I think is nonsense or not. There will always be tangents, some shortlived others not. There have been long topics where divergent topics coexist fine. If you want only your judgement as to what should and should not be posted to be a decider, forget it. You could always start your own forum and make those decisions. The present management is in a stage of evolution and are involved and engaging with a set of fundamental guidelines. Whatever they decide as being the rules are the rules, period. I think attempting to be polite in trying circumstances is a good thing to experience. Good for the soul. If you CAN NOT argue something you feel you are right about WITHOUT expletives do you really have an argument? Is it really one worth making? What does rudeness ADD to an argument that makes it better? I doubt it adds anything that makes it more persuasive. I suspect rather it detracts. It tells more about the person doing so than anything which basically is something I'm not interested in.

edit typo

Hi John - haven't met you before so, nice to meet you.

I'm not sure if your message was in response to mine or not but can I say I am not arguing for rudeness. I am arguing for the fair application of the rules and for evidence-based research. I saw nothing in Mr Parker's or Mr Graves' recent comments that merited banning or suspension along the lines of rudeness.

The point Mr Parker has made is that plenty of other posters have used expletives worse than his and yet they were not banned.