There has been some discussion regarding Rule (iv) of the forum rules of behaviour. It has been suggested that the motivations of a poster should be able to be questioned. Part of Rule (iv) currently forbids this.

What is your opinion? Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?

Please note this is NOT an "official" rule change vote; it is simply a vehicle to allow the board owners to know the opinions of forum members.

The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the JFK section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.

Thank you!

My own opinion is that the rule should remain. To me, it doesn't matter what the motivations of a poster are. If I disagree with what they say, I'll say why I disagree. If I believe they are posting inaccurate or misleading data, then I'll demonstrate why the posts are inaccurate or misleading. Who posts the statements is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion. To me, calling some as a "disinfo agent" or "agent provocateur" simply means you are unable to counter to other person's argument.

So far this page has gotten 41 views, I imagine that some were from non-members, members not logged in and/or people viewing it more than once (this my 2nd visit) but this is an important issue and more members should vote. There doesn't seem to be much support (0 out of 6 thus far) for Peter's proposal though.

While I might have been the one to bring it up, I do note that Evan took it upon himself to create the thread - hardly making it 'my' proposal en toto. Framing the debate is one way to control things. How the 'poll' was worded or even if it should be there [I think not] is another. Not a surprise Len would take any opportunity to take a negative swipe at me - but germain to the issue at hand. It is couched in pseudo-fact - that there is in Len's opinion not much support...he carefully and cleverly ignoring all the supporting posts. 


Switching gears....Jack's post of Jim DiEugenio's reply to someone on the Forum here,even much of the content should remind and re-enforce, in those who can think independantly, that there has often been in JFK assassination research (and in other research on the secret government/deep political actions in the USA and other places) a well-orchestrated disinformation effort - including persons placed inside apparently dissenting and investigative journals, books, articles, groups and Forums. I don't like and I know JS doesn't like witch-hunts and I'm not supporting or proposing one, but I'd bet my life that some on this Forum, [and other similar Forums] are not here just spouting opinion, but a propaganda line [i.e. they know the truth lies in another direction than that they point to]. That doesn't mean they are agents of any agency, entitiy, or even paid for what they do (though some may be, and others have been well rewarded for being on the better paying side) - they may do it out of personal motivation, a false sense of patriotism, love of the status quo, identification with authority, a fear of challenging the prevailing mythology, a desire to be on the prevailing side [in terms of power and money - not truth], or other psychological and political, even personal motives I could conceive of. Is there a total cure for such an affliction/infection. I think not. Is vigilance and sometimes the raising of someone's motives, based on a pattern of behavior. I think so - but rarely, and only in the most extreme cases. 

I remember in the 60s and 70s the endless debates about who might among us in various groups be the informer, the agent provocateur, etc. Allow me to relate a true story that will show why I believe great caution is needed, however. I was somewhat sympathetic to Students For A Democratic Society SDS, but was by nature not a group joiner. However, I did go to a meeting once and sat far in the back, being both shy and new, listening to a discussion of an upcoming demonstration or action and just polemical debates. Suddenly, someone in the central group stood up and demanded of me who I was and if I was an infiltrator. I was non-plus, as I was not, and generally sympathetic to their cause. A furor arose and I eventually left the meeting well before it ended. I later found out that the accuser was an infiltrator from the FBI.....and amazingly one of the leaders. I don't try to draw ANY parallels, only to caution that things can be quite different than how they appear...and that there are those who can and do try to disrupt from within (and even innocents accused of disruption by those really causing the disruption), and one should be vigilant and en garde for such, IMO. Then we can be as clever as they to disarm them, ignore them, blunt their attempts to divide and cause halvoc, dirty tricks and diversions, etc. Paranoia-Never; Vigilance-Ever.

Peter,

Please be cautious on how you phrase certain things. That almost sounds like you are accusing me of deliberately trying to control the debate. I know you would not do this, as you can easily see that I have asked EVERYONE to have their say, and specifically said it is not a vote to change the rule in a specific way but simply to indicate member feeling as to the necessity of examining what changes might be required.

Thanks!

Absurd, Peter proposed the change but intially want to burry discusion in another thread. The after Evan and I point out why that would be a bad idea agrees that a new thread was appropriate. Then he does nothing about it. Then when Evan takes it upon himself to start such a thread Peter complains he is trying to "control" things.

I imagine he's just sore because no one but him voted for his bad idea.

I see there are now two threads by this name - one in Political Conspiracies and one in JFK. Shouldn't there be [I think so] only one..or the two clones of one another in each.....!

If you think it's better merged into one, I have no problems.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=1932

Perhaps we should be questioning a poster's motivation after all?

Sorry Andy, but I can't read that because they banned my IP and I'm not even a member!

Perhaps Peter would be kind enough to describe 'the distasteful work' he deigns to undertake here.