Gary Mack's Education Forum account was suspended by me a few weeks ago following a series of offensive e-mails sent from him directly to my College mail box.
On reviewing his account I noticed he had never posted - not even once! Neither had he supplied an avatar or biography in direct contravention of our terms of use. Instead he used the forum simply as a means of contacting our members.
I have therefore not seen fit to unsuspend his account.
I believe John Simkin is now getting stick in other forums about "freedom of speech".
This is quite ridiculous.
Gary Mack had 2 years to exercise his right to free speech on the Education Forum during which time he said precisely nothing.
Furthermore this has been my decision not John's.

I believe Gary felt his posting comments online was somehow in conflict with his job as curator of The Sixth Floor Museum. I've exchanged a number of comments and e-mails with him over the last few years, and, aside from the occasional sarcastic comment about something I posted, he was always pleasant. I'm truly surprised he would send offensive e-mails. Is it possible someone else was pretending to be him?

I doubt it. Gary has been sending me offensive emails for sometime. Mind you, he is not the only American who does this. I assumed it was the American way.

It is strange that Gary should be getting his friends involved in demanding that his membership should be reinstated. Especially as he has always refused to post on the forum. His only concern seems to the right to contact our members in order to tell them they are wrong. If he had the courage to post his own views on the subject, he would then be forced to defend them on the forum. I suspect that is the real reason why he refuses to post.

However, Andy and I have decided that he can rejoin the forum as long as he follows the rules of membership. If Gary continues to post and restricts himself to sending PM to members, I suggest that members post them on the forum so these issues can be discussed.

Let me set the record straight if I can. I was once one of those individuals who was critical of Gary Mack not posting on forums, but it didn't take much of an effort on my part to discover why that was. The 6th Floor Museum "DOES NOT" want to take a position one way or the other on the JFK assassination as far as whether there was a conspiracy or not to kill the President. The Museum wishes to remain neutral on this matter and function as a keeper of the historical record .... and I certainly can understand why this is. Gary is a representative of the Museum and that means that he has to be careful about getting involved with JFK assasination forums and the debates that go on there. I personally know of one other person who was doing tours in the plaza through the museum and because this person had refused to remain neutral while representing the Museum - the Museum was forced to let him go! So the decision to participate on forums is not necessarily Gary Mack's. Does Gary Mack have opinions concerning the assassination of President Kennedy - sure he does. Can he back them up - probably better than the majority of his critics can do. Do I always agree with Gary's interpretation of the evidence - no! Try asking yourselves this quesation: Who among us who could have the chance to be sitting atop of such a historical wealth of data and information concerning the JFK assassination would risk throwing that position away by breaking the rules put forth to them by their employer ??? I sure as hell wouldn't!

I for one am one of those people who solicits information from Gary Mack on a regular basis. The reason why I go to Gary as a source of information is because of his position with the Museum and the resources they have at theor dispposal. Gary doesn't just offer an answer to a question, but he cites the sources for researchers to go view the evidence for themselves, thus if anyone is thinking that Gary Mack is somehow trying to confuse researchers and to get them to think as he does on a particular matter, then as far as I am concern they couldn't be more wrong. If anyone has complained about Gary contacting them, then Gary was mistaken in thinking that a particular forum member would be interested in knowing the facts of the case and where to find them. (If anyone doesn't wish to get contacted by Gary Mack - then block his email or simply use the delete function which takes only a second to accomplish.) Is that grounds for suspension ... I do not think so. As someone who died defending peoples rights - I wonder what John Kennedy would say about all this? Should Gary Mack post a photo of himself, sure ... if he is going to post on that forum, but if he is merely reading the forum - who cares if he post a photo of himself or not. I know of several people who post on JFK forums who use photos of other people .... does that mean what they say is any less correct or if we don't know any better - does that mean we are satisfied that they have at least posted a photo on their bio even if it isn't really them? And getting back to Gary's contacting the administrators about the virus problem ... had you all of listened to him in the first place, then maybe you would have saved yourselves and the members a headache. Did Gary appear to come on too strong ... that is up to the interpretation of those he contacted. However, the virus could have been devastating to peoples sytems who have large data bases in their computer, so I personally can see why Gary would have been very forthright in his attempt to relay the seriousness of the matter to the proper authorities. The entire matter seems to have been much to do about nothing IMO.

Bill Miller

The success of this forum has largely rested on our insistence that people follow our simple forum guidelines.
I see no reason to make an exception for a guy simply because his employers don't seem to believe in freedom of speech.
Furthermore if people just want to read what's going on they are free to do that without being a member.

There is no evidence that the issues raised in the foul mouthed e-mails I received from Mr Mack 3 weeks before our forum was targeted by hackers and before even Invision even knew of the existence of a security problem had anything to do with the subsequent attack.
Unless of course one of the artefacts in the 6th Floor Museum is a crystal ball

I, for one, would be most interested in seeing the alleged 'foul mouthed' emails. If they were as you say, then I certainly understand your position. It just seemed ridiculous to hear things like '"Ed forum suspends guy who never posted' or 'Posting privileges denied non-poster'.

Bill

I am sure that if you read our forum guidelines and gave them some quiet thought these things would start to seem less ridiculous
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=boardrules

'Bill Miller' wrote:



Let me set the record straight if I can. I was once one of those individuals who was critical of Gary Mack not posting on forums, but it didn't take much of an effort on my part to discover why that was. The 6th Floor Museum "DOES NOT" want to take a position one way or the other on the JFK assassination as far as whether there was a conspiracy or not to kill the President. The Museum wishes to remain neutral on this matter and function as a keeper of the historical record .... and I certainly can understand why this is. Gary is a representative of the Museum and that means that he has to be careful about getting involved with JFK assasination forums and the debates that go on there. I personally know of one other person who was doing tours in the plaza through the museum and because this person had refused to remain neutral while representing the Museum - the Museum was forced to let him go! So the decision to participate on forums is not necessarily Gary Mack's. Does Gary Mack have opinions concerning the assassination of President Kennedy - sure he does. Can he back them up - probably better than the majority of his critics can do. Do I always agree with Gary's interpretation of the evidence - no! Try asking yourselves this quesation: Who among us who could have the chance to be sitting atop of such a historical wealth of data and information concerning the JFK assassination would risk throwing that position away by breaking the rules put forth to them by their employer ??? I sure as hell wouldn't!

I for one am one of those people who solicits information from Gary Mack on a regular basis. The reason why I go to Gary as a source of information is because of his position with the Museum and the resources they have at theor dispposal. Gary doesn't just offer an answer to a question, but he cites the sources for researchers to go view the evidence for themselves, thus if anyone is thinking that Gary Mack is somehow trying to confuse researchers and to get them to think as he does on a particular matter, then as far as I am concern they couldn't be more wrong. If anyone has complained about Gary contacting them, then Gary was mistaken in thinking that a particular forum member would be interested in knowing the facts of the case and where to find them. (If anyone doesn't wish to get contacted by Gary Mack - then block his email or simply use the delete function which takes only a second to accomplish.) Is that grounds for suspension ... I do not think so. As someone who died defending peoples rights - I wonder what John Kennedy would say about all this? Should Gary Mack post a photo of himself, sure ... if he is going to post on that forum, but if he is merely reading the forum - who cares if he post a photo of himself or not.

dgh: Invoking JFK's name? I suspect JFK would of followed the rules, why do you think he'd do otherwise? Amazing you didn't show me that latitude, you moaned to JSimkin first chance you got -- bit of a hypocrite, aren't you?

I know of several people who post on JFK forums who use photos of other people .... does that mean what they say is any less correct or if we don't know any better - does that mean we are satisfied that they have at least posted a photo on their bio even if it isn't really them? And getting back to Gary's contacting the administrators about the virus problem ... had you all of listened to him in the first place, then maybe you would have saved yourselves and the members a headache. Did Gary appear to come on too strong ... that is up to the interpretation of those he contacted. However, the virus could have been devastating to peoples sytems who have large data bases in their computer, so I personally can see why Gary would have been very forthright in his attempt to relay the seriousness of the matter to the proper authorities. The entire matter seems to have been much to do about nothing IMO.

dgh: does all this Gary asskissing and promoting mean you haven't a job at the 6th Floor YET? I hope you get one soon, you'll be under the same forum posting restrictions Gary M is, right ?

Bill Miller

John, if your statement that Gary has been getting his friends to demand his membership be reinstated was a reference to my post, I can assure you you're mistaken. I noticed recently that Gary's old PMs had been deleted from my inbox, and then saw Andy's post. While Gary and I have exchanged a few e-mails recently on the Miller photo--as discussed on the "photo alteration in the media" thread, I'knew nothing of his getting kicked off the Forum. As stated, if his messages were indeed foul-mouthed or offensive, I'm surprised. His messages to me have been respectful for the most part. One time he got upset and asked me "What's the matter with YOU people?" But compared to the abuse encountered recently online, I considered this minor. He has never used foul language that I can recall.

As far as his refusal to defend his views on the forum, I doubt that is by design. When Gary has told me I'm wrong, sometimes I've turned around and told him he was wrong, and why. He's conceded a few of my points. As a result, I suspect his telling people they're wrong is done for two reasons--to help steer the debate away from what to him are already resoved issues and to further his own education.

As far as Gary's removal from the Forum, I liked Tim Gratz yet supported his removal when he started making threats. If Gary's messages are truly offensive, and not just annoying because he projects that he knows more than the rest of us, then by-all-means threaten him with removal from the Forum. If he's already been warned, then adios, Gary. Forum membership is a privilege not a right.

I bet if we looked hard enough we could find a violation or two in post 8 of this thread, but I bet the poster will not be banned. I also know that Mack was not the first person to know about the potential hacking of the Ed Forum. Denis Morissette posted about his software detecting a virus a week before Mack contacted the Ed Forum adminstrators. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...622dd936d1bfc2e

Bill Miller

Well done! You are getting the hang of it now.
The taciturn Mack is now back on this forum which rather negates the need for this thread or the tangental handbags at 10 paces which appears to be developing.

Incidentally Dennis Morisette is not a member of the Education Forum. I believe he once was but he left in a state of high dudgeon because his support for holocaust denial views was being challenged robustly.

Andy, you may not know it, but there are several members of this forum who used a false name and photo. It may be that Denis uses this forum and you just don't know which named he used.

Bill

I won't forget Dennis in a hurry. A combination of arrogance, ignorance and credulity - sadly not a unique combination amongst the CT nutcases on this forum.
Dennis however stood out rather because of his inability to spell the most simple and commonplace of words and his consistent misuse of others.
Whether he re joined under a nom de plume and continue to post his ungrammatical nonsense is a matter of extreme disinterest to me. Especially when I review today's activity on the "Education" Forum and realise what it has become