Jump to content


Spartacus

JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points


  • Please log in to reply
374 replies to this topic

#301 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:25 PM

Ray, despite repeated, patient efforts to persuade you to observe the rules of the forum and to be respectful at all times to other members and moderators, you just won't let up.

The warning I communicated to you is displayed in the last post in the thread below this one. You've been extended every courtesy, despite your extreme reaction to routine moderation.

I am replying to your most recent post, since this is not a thread intended for lengthy, obnoxious protest, in the thread in question. Kindly stop posting in protest on this thread. Commence, at long last to observe the rules and simply contact another moderator or administrator if you disagree with moderating decisions I've made.

Edited by Tom Scully, 27 March 2012 - 12:31 PM.


#302 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,768 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:57 PM

under ''other points''
a couple of ''dis-likes'' :
I want to go straight to the post. Its link is least obvious (on my browser at least) aand to get there all these lingering popups appear. Shouldn't the link to the last post be above and bolded wwith a caption like latest post? ,
I got a popup for a PM but choose to follow another link before looking at the message bin and there was no message. Is ''not clicking on the popup'' a reject? Anyway to whoever PM'd me, I didn't get it.

#303 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2012 - 12:34 AM

Len Colby, I am announcing this here so as not to eclipse the announcement by Evan Burton. I made your recent thread invisible because it was OT and now seems to have become an unnecessary topic of discussion.

#304 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:03 AM

Len Colby, I am announcing this here so as not to eclipse the announcement by Evan Burton. I made your recent thread invisible because it was OT and now seems to have become an unnecessary topic of discussion.


Ironic that you see fit to enforce a rule you don't follow. Explain how a thread about the JFK assassination "off topic" on a forum about the JFK assassination?

The Cinque circus are among the most disruptive and oxygen consuming threads this forum has ever seen. I would like to see things get back to normal, what's so bad about that?

I request that you consult with other mods/admins about this.

#305 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2012 - 04:56 AM

Len, I made your thread visible. Please don't make me regret restoring it. I understand, from your objection to it going away, that you want to discuss the "man in the doorway" thread's negative impact on this forum and on the reputation of the research community.....

#306 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,768 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 30 May 2012 - 04:30 PM

under ''other points''
a couple of ''dis-likes'' :
I want to go straight to the post. Its link is least obvious (on my browser at least) aand to get there all these lingering popups appear. Shouldn't the link to the last post be above and bolded wwith a caption like latest post? ,
I got a popup for a PM but choose to follow another link before looking at the message bin and there was no message. Is ''not clicking on the popup'' a reject? Anyway to whoever PM'd me, I didn't get it.


My mistake. I pretty sure I misread the message re new post when posting.

#307 Lee Farley

Lee Farley

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,622 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2012 - 08:40 PM

I believe moderator Tom Scully has left a distinct impression, whether intentional or unintentional, that I have done something abusive to him in my posts.

I would like it on record that this post by Tom Scully;

"Mr. Parker, Mr. Farley, and Mr. Cinque, the man posted that this thread must be "free from abuse," if it was to stay open.
When I made one last attempt to keep it within that spirit, your responses were to abuse me, and or to blame others for the way
you chose to post.

Evan Burton, on 06 June 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:
I considered closing the thread but feel that there are lots of issues that members still wish to discuss... free from abuse. I'm therefore leaving it open. If, however, it degenerates into invective then I will close it immediately.

Please do not start a new thread to "discuss" this topic. I will close it."


Is actually in response to this message I wrote today;

"Yeah, I think you are missing something.

Shall I tell you how I "take your statements" seeing as how we are now dishing our opinions out? I take your statements as someone who is still smarting over receiving feedback that you didn't like.

I "take your statements" like I have recently taken all of your others; with a pinch of salt mainly due to the fact they come from someone who seems to have derived an unhealthy sense of identity from your role as a moderator.

A moderator; someone who is asked to ensure that the forum rules are followed and to help diffuse emotional reactions between members.

Instead of simply applying the rules you feel it necessary to bait members who you have taken exception to. You, Sir, are as bad as any other member here in trying to stir things up. "Who do you think you are?", you write. Are you using this phrase because in a recent post I informed you that it was a sure fire way to receive an emotional response from a fellow human being? It would be best if you kept your opinions to yourself regarding me from now on because not only am I not interested in them, I'm sure the rest of members are not that interested either. Just do your job and "free speech" any offending passages from my post (but as I'm sure you aware there aren't any). Alternatively you can "disappear" them should you feel necessary as I see you now have Pat on board in utilising your "free speech framework."

You even felt it necessary a few weeks ago to question the motives of Jerry Dealey. A man who let Ralph Cinque have five months of "free speech" over at JFK Lancer. A full four months, three weeks and one day longer than you have let him have here. I guess their "free speech within a framework of rules" is more free than the one you have defined for yourself and try to push on others?

I would request that you now go back and remove the offending comments from your post, especially the quotes you attribute to me in your final paragraph that are not mine.

I would also reiterate Greg's post and ask for evidence of your allegation against me please? Your overall post does not require me to apply "meaning" to you questioning my motives and the motives of my posts. Are you familiar with the rule that you are quick to highlight of others? Or is your "free speech framework of rules" different to ours?

Thanks"


Which was in response to this that Scully posted;


"Lee Farley, on 07 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

.....About a month ago I was "debating" with Ralph Cinque over on Lancer. Not so much concerning his opinions and conclusions (many of which are so ill-conceived and bizzare that it's somewhat demeaning to reply to many of them), but more about his approach in dipping his toe into the forums that have people as members who have hundreds of years worth of collective research experience and knowledge about the case. I told him if he didn't change direction he would be crushed under the weight of a tornado of criticism. I was right. Ralph was, yet again, wrong.

.........

Well Ralph being Ralph simply dropped it. It appears that he is only interested in pursuing things that will bring him negative attention rather than things that might open up new avenues of investigation.

.........

We call it beating a dead horse. As Evan recently posted in another thread....:

Quote
http://educationforu...74

(Insert name of member with riding crop in hand) - you are better than this; show it by not retaliating to jibes, nor taking advantage of someone's situation. ....


Unless I'm missing something in your meaning, I take your statements as chest pounding over the result achieved from the effort you and others put in to make your predictions come true. You had the choice to ignore that which you disagreed with. You made a different choice. You launch your "I told you so!" Your "It is all that other guy's fault, I warned him, but he didn't listen, and now look at him!"

Just who do you think you are? You ought to consider how you come off, to those of us watching from the cheap seats."


I suppose being baited, as I have explained to Moderator Scully before, with emotive questions such as "Who do you think you are?" and having quotes invented and attributed to me, I simply have to sit and take? If I ask for an apology and respond with some of my own opinions concerning his style of moderating then is it then acceptable that I am then accused of abusing him? There is no abuse in anything I have written to him today and would ask the more level headed moderators, the ones who don't close threads as some sort of punishment to the whole membership, to look at my post to Mr. Scully and identify for me the abuse. If I don't believe there is any abuse in the post and Scully thinks there is then I would like some independent advice for future posts. I obviously don't know what I don't know.

Is Mr. Scully allowed to question my motives? Is he allowed to invent quotes and attribute them to me? If I question this behaviour and provide feedback regarding his inability to diffuse situations - is this then defined as me abusing him? Is he allowed to claim I (along with others) achieved "results" through efforts I made in what happened to Ralph? Really? Can he just make garbage like this up?

It looks like it is me that is now "missing something." I find Scully's moderating behaviour to get more and more bizarre by the week. I'm obviously not the only one thinking this. I would like to say thanks to Pat, Kathy, Don, David and Evan in the way you have, in a quite level-headed manner, moderated and managed some incredibly difficult situations over the last few weeks. You have not stirred it up, avoided applying your personal opinions to heated conversations, and simply and quietly applied the rules and moved on. It would appear that Mr. Scully instead holds grudges against individual members.

I don't know what "abuse" Ralph Cinque has been posting because he's being moderated and no-one sees the alleged abuse but there is certainly no "abuse" in either Greg's or my own posts in reply to Scully's posts today. There may be things Tom Scully doesn't like written in them - but hey, that's a different matter. He didn't like me saying that I didn't read his posts because of the way in which he presents and structures them - well, he only went and took that as a personal attack. It's becoming apparent that anything this geezer doesn't like is quickly defined as an attack or as abuse.

If these are desirable behaviours of a moderator then God help us. Can he not see what is written in his own posts, and the way that they read to someone other than the person who wrote them? Can he not see that what he accuses other of, he is guilty of himself?

I think he needs to get a grip and reread some of his recent non-brain dump posts. Or ask someone he knows to read them. As far as I can see, he currently represents a microcosm of the things he purports to be against. He's like a moderating tyrant, IMO.

Edited by Lee Farley, 07 June 2012 - 10:12 PM.


#308 Greg Parker

Greg Parker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:07 PM

I can only add to that that it is against all applications of "fair play" to hurl accusations and then lock a thread so that the accusations cannot be responded to. It is not the first time Tom has done this.

I believe moderator Tom Scully has left a distinct impression, whether intentional or unintentional, that I have done something abusive to him in my posts.

I would like it on record that this post by Tom Scully;

"Mr. Parker, Mr. Farley, and Mr. Cinque, the man posted that this thread must be "free from abuse," if it was to stay open.
When I made one last attempt to keep it within that spirit, your responses were to abuse me, and or to blame others for the way
you chose to post.

Evan Burton, on 06 June 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:
I considered closing the thread but feel that there are lots of issues that members still wish to discuss... free from abuse. I'm therefore leaving it open. If, however, it degenerates into invective then I will close it immediately.

Please do not start a new thread to "discuss" this topic. I will close it."


Is actually in response to this message I wrote today;

"Yeah, I think you are missing something.

Shall I tell you how I "take your statements" seeing as how we are now dishing our opinions out? I take your statements as someone who is still smarting over receiving feedback that you didn't like.

I "take your statements" like I have recently taken all of your others; with a pinch of salt mainly due to the fact they come from someone who seems to have derived an unhealthy sense of identity from your role as a moderator.

A moderator; someone who is asked to ensure that the forum rules are followed and to help diffuse emotional reactions between members.

Instead of simply applying the rules you feel it necessary to bait members who you have taken exception to. You, Sir, are as bad as any other member here in trying to stir things up. "Who do you think you are?", you write. Are you using this phrase because in a recent post I informed you that it was a sure fire way to receive an emotional response from a fellow human being? It would be best if you kept your opinions to yourself regarding me from now on because not only am I not interested in them, I'm sure the rest of members are not that interested either. Just do your job and "free speech" any offending passages from my post (but as I'm sure you aware there aren't any). Alternatively you can "disappear" them should you feel necessary as I see you now have Pat on board in utilising your "free speech framework."

You even felt it necessary a few weeks ago to question the motives of Jerry Dealey. A man who let Ralph Cinque have five months of "free speech" over at JFK Lancer. A full four months, three weeks and one day longer than you have let him have here. I guess their "free speech within a framework of rules" is more free than the one you have defined for yourself and try to push on others?

I would request that you now go back and remove the offending comments from your post, especially the quotes you attribute to me in your final paragraph that are not mine.

I would also reiterate Greg's post and ask for evidence of your allegation against me please? Your overall post does not require me to apply "meaning" to you questioning my motives and the motives of my posts. Are you familiar with the rule that you are quick to highlight of others? Or is your "free speech framework of rules" different to ours?

Thanks"


Which was in response to this that Scully posted;


"Lee Farley, on 07 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

.....About a month ago I was "debating" with Ralph Cinque over on Lancer. Not so much concerning his opinions and conclusions (many of which are so ill-conceived and bizzare that it's somewhat demeaning to reply to many of them), but more about his approach in dipping his toe into the forums that have people as members who have hundreds of years worth of collective research experience and knowledge about the case. I told him if he didn't change direction he would be crushed under the weight of a tornado of criticism. I was right. Ralph was, yet again, wrong.

.........

Well Ralph being Ralph simply dropped it. It appears that he is only interested in pursuing things that will bring him negative attention rather than things that might open up new avenues of investigation.

.........

We call it beating a dead horse. As Evan recently posted in another thread....:

Quote
http://educationforu...74

(Insert name of member with riding crop in hand) - you are better than this; show it by not retaliating to jibes, nor taking advantage of someone's situation. ....


Unless I'm missing something in your meaning, I take your statements as chest pounding over the result achieved from the effort you and others put in to make your predictions come true. You had the choice to ignore that which you disagreed with. You made a different choice. You launch your "I told you so!" Your "It is all that other guy's fault, I warned him, but he didn't listen, and now look at him!"

Just who do you think you are? You ought to consider how you come off, to those of us watching from the cheap seats."


I suppose being baited, as I have explained to Moderator Scully before, with emotive questions such as "Who do you think you are?" and having quotes invented and attributed to me, I simply have to sit and take? If I ask for an apology and respond with some of my own opinions concerning his style of moderating then is it then acceptable that I am then accused of abusing him? There is no abuse in anything I have written to him today and would ask the more level headed moderators, the ones who don't close threads as some sort of punishment to the whole membership, to look at my post to Mr. Scully and identify for me the abuse. If I don't believe there is any abuse in the post and Scully thinks there is then I would like some independent advice for future posts. I obviously don't know what I don't know.

Is Mr. Scully allowed to question my motives? Is he allowed to invent quotes and attribute them to me? If I question this behaviour and provide feedback regarding his inability to diffuse situations - is this then defined as me abusing him? Is he allowed to claim I (a.omg with others) achieved "results" through efforts I made in what happened to Ralph? What the hell?

It looks like it is me that is now "missing something." I find Scully's moderating behaviour to get more and more bizarre by the week. I'm obviously not the only one thinking this. I would like to say thanks to Pat, Kathy, Don, David and Evan in the way you have, in a quite level-headed manner, moderated and managed some incredibly difficult situations over the last few weeks. You have not stirred it up, avoided applying your personal opinions to heated conversations, and simply and quietly applied the rules and moved on. It would appear that Mr. Scully instead holds grudges against individual members. I don't know what "abuse" Ralph Cinque has been posting because he's being moderated but there is no "abuse" in either Greg's or my own posts in reply to Scully's posts today. There may be things Tom Scully doesn't like written in them, but that's a different matter. He didn't like me saying his I didn't read his posts because of the way in which he presents them - well, he only went and took that as a personal attack as well as is documented on the forum.

If these are desirable behaviours of a moderator then God help us. Can he not see what is written in his own posts, and the way that they read to someone other than the person who wrote them? Can he not see that what he accuses other of, he is guilty of himself?

I think he needs to get a grip and reread some of his recent non-brain dump posts. Or ask someone he knows to read them. As far as I can see, he currently represents a microcosm of the things he purports to be against. He's like a moderating tyrant, IMO.



#309 Lee Farley

Lee Farley

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,622 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:26 PM

Here is what he has thrown at members today;

No chest beating. Whilst he then goes on and chest beats. No pontificating. Whilst he then goes on to pontificate. No abuse. As he then goes on to abuse. No baiting. As he has a go at baiting. No lecturing. As he is mid-sentence lecturing. No questioning motives. As he questions motives. And, well, the less said about his accusations of egotism, the better.

The awkward part of it all is that Tom just won't be able to believe that he done all of the above today. He will instead deflect it all outwards. His own behaviour will be completely acceptable.

UNBELIEVABLE.

I can only add to that that it is against all applications of "fair play" to hurl accusations and then lock a thread so that the accusations cannot be responded to. It is not the first time Tom has done this.


I believe moderator Tom Scully has left a distinct impression, whether intentional or unintentional, that I have done something abusive to him in my posts.

I would like it on record that this post by Tom Scully;

"Mr. Parker, Mr. Farley, and Mr. Cinque, the man posted that this thread must be "free from abuse," if it was to stay open.
When I made one last attempt to keep it within that spirit, your responses were to abuse me, and or to blame others for the way
you chose to post.

Evan Burton, on 06 June 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:
I considered closing the thread but feel that there are lots of issues that members still wish to discuss... free from abuse. I'm therefore leaving it open. If, however, it degenerates into invective then I will close it immediately.

Please do not start a new thread to "discuss" this topic. I will close it."


Is actually in response to this message I wrote today;

"Yeah, I think you are missing something.

Shall I tell you how I "take your statements" seeing as how we are now dishing our opinions out? I take your statements as someone who is still smarting over receiving feedback that you didn't like.

I "take your statements" like I have recently taken all of your others; with a pinch of salt mainly due to the fact they come from someone who seems to have derived an unhealthy sense of identity from your role as a moderator.

A moderator; someone who is asked to ensure that the forum rules are followed and to help diffuse emotional reactions between members.

Instead of simply applying the rules you feel it necessary to bait members who you have taken exception to. You, Sir, are as bad as any other member here in trying to stir things up. "Who do you think you are?", you write. Are you using this phrase because in a recent post I informed you that it was a sure fire way to receive an emotional response from a fellow human being? It would be best if you kept your opinions to yourself regarding me from now on because not only am I not interested in them, I'm sure the rest of members are not that interested either. Just do your job and "free speech" any offending passages from my post (but as I'm sure you aware there aren't any). Alternatively you can "disappear" them should you feel necessary as I see you now have Pat on board in utilising your "free speech framework."

You even felt it necessary a few weeks ago to question the motives of Jerry Dealey. A man who let Ralph Cinque have five months of "free speech" over at JFK Lancer. A full four months, three weeks and one day longer than you have let him have here. I guess their "free speech within a framework of rules" is more free than the one you have defined for yourself and try to push on others?

I would request that you now go back and remove the offending comments from your post, especially the quotes you attribute to me in your final paragraph that are not mine.

I would also reiterate Greg's post and ask for evidence of your allegation against me please? Your overall post does not require me to apply "meaning" to you questioning my motives and the motives of my posts. Are you familiar with the rule that you are quick to highlight of others? Or is your "free speech framework of rules" different to ours?

Thanks"


Which was in response to this that Scully posted;


"Lee Farley, on 07 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

.....About a month ago I was "debating" with Ralph Cinque over on Lancer. Not so much concerning his opinions and conclusions (many of which are so ill-conceived and bizzare that it's somewhat demeaning to reply to many of them), but more about his approach in dipping his toe into the forums that have people as members who have hundreds of years worth of collective research experience and knowledge about the case. I told him if he didn't change direction he would be crushed under the weight of a tornado of criticism. I was right. Ralph was, yet again, wrong.

.........

Well Ralph being Ralph simply dropped it. It appears that he is only interested in pursuing things that will bring him negative attention rather than things that might open up new avenues of investigation.

.........

We call it beating a dead horse. As Evan recently posted in another thread....:

Quote
http://educationforu...74

(Insert name of member with riding crop in hand) - you are better than this; show it by not retaliating to jibes, nor taking advantage of someone's situation. ....


Unless I'm missing something in your meaning, I take your statements as chest pounding over the result achieved from the effort you and others put in to make your predictions come true. You had the choice to ignore that which you disagreed with. You made a different choice. You launch your "I told you so!" Your "It is all that other guy's fault, I warned him, but he didn't listen, and now look at him!"

Just who do you think you are? You ought to consider how you come off, to those of us watching from the cheap seats."


I suppose being baited, as I have explained to Moderator Scully before, with emotive questions such as "Who do you think you are?" and having quotes invented and attributed to me, I simply have to sit and take? If I ask for an apology and respond with some of my own opinions concerning his style of moderating then is it then acceptable that I am then accused of abusing him? There is no abuse in anything I have written to him today and would ask the more level headed moderators, the ones who don't close threads as some sort of punishment to the whole membership, to look at my post to Mr. Scully and identify for me the abuse. If I don't believe there is any abuse in the post and Scully thinks there is then I would like some independent advice for future posts. I obviously don't know what I don't know.

Is Mr. Scully allowed to question my motives? Is he allowed to invent quotes and attribute them to me? If I question this behaviour and provide feedback regarding his inability to diffuse situations - is this then defined as me abusing him? Is he allowed to claim I (a.omg with others) achieved "results" through efforts I made in what happened to Ralph? What the hell?

It looks like it is me that is now "missing something." I find Scully's moderating behaviour to get more and more bizarre by the week. I'm obviously not the only one thinking this. I would like to say thanks to Pat, Kathy, Don, David and Evan in the way you have, in a quite level-headed manner, moderated and managed some incredibly difficult situations over the last few weeks. You have not stirred it up, avoided applying your personal opinions to heated conversations, and simply and quietly applied the rules and moved on. It would appear that Mr. Scully instead holds grudges against individual members. I don't know what "abuse" Ralph Cinque has been posting because he's being moderated but there is no "abuse" in either Greg's or my own posts in reply to Scully's posts today. There may be things Tom Scully doesn't like written in them, but that's a different matter. He didn't like me saying his I didn't read his posts because of the way in which he presents them - well, he only went and took that as a personal attack as well as is documented on the forum.

If these are desirable behaviours of a moderator then God help us. Can he not see what is written in his own posts, and the way that they read to someone other than the person who wrote them? Can he not see that what he accuses other of, he is guilty of himself?

I think he needs to get a grip and reread some of his recent non-brain dump posts. Or ask someone he knows to read them. As far as I can see, he currently represents a microcosm of the things he purports to be against. He's like a moderating tyrant, IMO.


Edited by Lee Farley, 07 June 2012 - 11:28 PM.


#310 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 01 July 2012 - 02:09 AM

Tom Scully's continuous violations of forum rules he is supposed to enforce noted

#311 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,147 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2012 - 09:36 PM

I would like to file a formal complaint that Mike Rago has - five times, stepped on my Valkyrie thread posts - without good reason, and if he continues to do so, after I have politely requested him to stop - I would like to have him placed on moderation so that his posts will be read by moderators before they can be seen to prevent him from engaging further in this childish behavior.

I have also posted the link to my article at Deep Politics Forum and there is a lively discussion by over a half dozen different people about the issues the article presents.

Here, Mike Rago has stomped on it, and I object.

Bill Kelly

#312 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,147 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2012 - 11:32 PM

I would like to file a formal complaint that Mike Rago has - five times, stepped on my Valkyrie thread posts - without good reason, and if he continues to do so, after I have politely requested him to stop - I would like to have him placed on moderation so that his posts will be read by moderators before they can be seen to prevent him from engaging further in this childish behavior.

I have also posted the link to my article at Deep Politics Forum and there is a lively discussion by over a half dozen different people about the issues the article presents.

Here, Mike Rago has stomped on it, and I object.

Bill Kelly


Are there any moderators reading these posts?

If there is, I would like them to answer Mike Rago's questions, if you think it worthwhile, as I refuse to do so anymore, and if he continues to step on my posts on my Valkyrie thread without any moderation, I guess I will have to stop posting here, as many others have done.

I will answer any specific question Mike Rago has by personal message, but I will no longer respond to him on the public forum as he is asking questions that should be known by anyone who has done even rudimentary research.

I don't have time to stop to explain or debate BS with those whose only apparent mission is to disrupt others from properly responding to new research.

BK

#313 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,147 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:02 AM

MODERATORS - I've tried to send individual messages to a number of you, including John Simkin but apparently none of the moderators accepts personal messages on this forum.

Therefore, I am publicly asking that a moderator please correct the typo in the subject title of my post on the NARA protest.

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

#314 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,102 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:05 AM

I would like to file a formal complaint that Mike Rago has - five times, stepped on my Valkyrie thread posts - without good reason, and if he continues to do so, after I have politely requested him to stop - I would like to have him placed on moderation so that his posts will be read by moderators before they can be seen to prevent him from engaging further in this childish behavior.


I agree this is a problem with this Forum. Steven Gaal also does this. If you remember, Tim Gratz used to do this. It is a difficult one to deal with. Is it bad enough to put them on moderation? I would be interested in what other members think about this.

#315 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,768 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:50 PM

If this is other than accidental or anthusiasm, and it is a problem for posters, which I think in a long run ot isn't, ( I used to get a bit annoyed when whatever I had to say was afa I was concerned annoying as what I have to say IS more important (ahem)) a post lag could help. But in the end : so what? One learns things either way. (In this case: BK is annoyed.)

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva, 25 September 2012 - 01:51 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users