Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is it possible to add a new Forum on Intelligence & Espionage?
The Education Forum > Welcome to the Education Forum > Forum Information, Development and Communication
Stephen Roy
I'd love to see a new Forum here on Intelligence and Espionage. The JFK forum often touches on this, as do others. It would be a place to discuss controversial cases in intelligence history, new issues involving intelligence agencies, the balance between security and liberty, etc.

What say ye?
Peter Lemkin
QUOTE (Stephen Roy @ Jan 11 2008, 04:48 PM) *
I'd love to see a new Forum here on Intelligence and Espionage. The JFK forum often touches on this, as do others. It would be a place to discuss controversial cases in intelligence history, new issues involving intelligence agencies, the balance between security and liberty, etc.

What say ye?


In theory it sounds good to me, however, I have found that 'where' one places a topic is almost more important [in the number looking at it] than the topic per se, sadly. Anything, currently, but JFK or Conspiracy [as, say, only a 'debate' etc.] means it will languish unseen or almost so. Intelligence, Espionage and Covert Operations might be better as a rubric. IMO
Evan Burton
I think it would be a good idea. I'll bring it to the attention of Andy and John for their consideration.
John Simkin
The problem is that most members only look at certain sections of the forum. As a result, new sections receive very few visitors and debates rarely take place. That is why some members post non-JFK subjects in that section of the forum. Personally, I always access the forum via "Today's Active Topics". However, I appear to be in a minority.
Stephen Roy
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Jan 19 2008, 12:56 PM) *
The problem is that most members only look at certain sections of the forum. As a result, new sections receive very few visitors and debates rarely take place. That is why some members post non-JFK subjects in that section of the forum. Personally, I always access the forum via "Today's Active Topics". However, I appear to be in a minority.


Sounds like a no-go, unfortunately. But it's not that difficult to add a new Forum, is it?

I suspect it might start slow, but it holds the potential of eventually drawing many users. There is not now a good forum anywhere for such discussions. There is one called Final Phase, but it is heavily populated by former intelligence people and CI groupies. I'd love to have a place to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair, the Yurchenko case or other interesting cases, and to get news on new happenings or good new books.

Can I twist your arm a bit??
John Simkin
QUOTE (Stephen Roy @ Feb 1 2008, 04:07 PM) *
I suspect it might start slow, but it holds the potential of eventually drawing many users. There is not now a good forum anywhere for such discussions. There is one called Final Phase, but it is heavily populated by former intelligence people and CI groupies. I'd love to have a place to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair, the Yurchenko case or other interesting cases, and to get news on new happenings or good new books.

Can I twist your arm a bit??


Why not start it in the "Political Conspiracies" section. That already has a wide readership. I will also be willing to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair with you.
Stephen Roy
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Feb 1 2008, 05:32 PM) *
QUOTE (Stephen Roy @ Feb 1 2008, 04:07 PM) *
I suspect it might start slow, but it holds the potential of eventually drawing many users. There is not now a good forum anywhere for such discussions. There is one called Final Phase, but it is heavily populated by former intelligence people and CI groupies. I'd love to have a place to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair, the Yurchenko case or other interesting cases, and to get news on new happenings or good new books.

Can I twist your arm a bit??


Why not start it in the "Political Conspiracies" section. That already has a wide readership. I will also be willing to debate the Golitsyn-Nosenko affair with you.


That could be interesting. I take the position that Nosenko was more or less genuine, albeit with a bit of exaggeration of his importance, and that Golitsyn was fabricating to puff his own importance. What say you?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.