The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA).

These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK section. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views.

Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed.

It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate.

It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum.

For further guidance of expected behaviour see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

John,

Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough!

Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what?

Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile...

David Healy

David a simply forum search gives you this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=5680

Hi,

Being one of the first of the moderating committee to tread lightly into posting here - I'd like to give everyone a chance to positively contribute the continued well being of this esteemed forum.

As an attempt at a statement of intent and as a means of, hopefully, allaying and misconceptions or fears about the role I am undertaking; I submit the following.

I have obviously not been a member long enough to know better than to accept this role, but long enough to know that the vastly overwhelming number of members post with good faith, their research, opinions and questions. The forum membership is extremely knowledgeable and mature and, as a result, self regulating in the extreme. I do not intend, nor will I do anything to ruin the well established forum relationships and all that entails.

I can ensure all that my personal integrity will enable impartial decision making. I am also generously endowed with a sense of humour, and thick skin, amongst other things, which I hope will serve me well.

I intend to be reasonably passive; not intervening unless asked to and only then after careful consideration with the moderating committee as a whole. My preference would be for first party communication only to the committee. I am aware that in the modern workplace and everyday life personal perception rather than intention is seemingly nine tenths of the law. Therefore if its OK for the folk involved I'm inclined to not intervene on a 3rd party request, though as with everything in life, this cannot be said to be without exception.

I sincerely hope that no-one countenances the idea that the forum is now a nanny/police state. I would be massively disappointed if the appointment of the committee makes any forum member think this. The moderating function has always been undertaken and operated in the background in a discreet manner and I hope to continue this.

If the new committee's formation results in John having more time to deal with vastly more important issues then a modicum of success will have already been achieved.

All communication will be treated with confidentiality and only shared and discussed amongst the committee. I can say for certain that a PM will never surface on the forum from me.

I have posted this so hopefully forum members can advise me on how best to progress and also to give an idea of my vision of my role and moderating style.

I hope to be redundant and fully expect to be.

Gary

I couldn't agree more.

I am one of the newest members of this forum, and am impressed with the membership here. Some of the finest reasearchers in the world are posters. I cannot tell you how much I have learned by reading here.

I believe in the freedom of ideas, and those have ALWAYS been encouraged here.

While I wanted to be more eloquent, I felt it more important to let those reading here know that this is a joint effort, and any issues, as stated above, will be dealt with in a discreet and confidential manner.

And who monitors the moderating committee?....I hope anything removed from a post will be 'visable' as deleted so what is going on is transparent to Forum Members. Kathy, I know nothing about you, but you are obviously very new here and that gives me pause....

We'll see....I would hope only the most agregious things would be censored. We all get upset and angry every once and a while and as long as there is still information and/or empassioned opinion being
expressed without being cruel or just plain meanspirited, I hope it will pass muster. Repeat offenders who only belch bile [there are some here] should be looked at more closely when they step over the line...but still the line must be 'way out there'.

I agree.

This is NOT about monitoring content of argument. That I am new should demonstrate that I do not intend to get involved with respect to whose position is correct.

Your question "And who monitors the Moderating committee?" is almost existential. (Who moderates the Moderators?)

Peter, all of us, as forum members, monitor the moderating committee and to an extent always have done.

Bile belching and any other projectile emissions (not related to JFK ballistics, of course) will be cleaned up, John has sub-contracted a local firm for the job.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

I asked a question in the "BEHAVIOUR" thread that has so far gone unanswered, but I feel that it is quite important to American members, so I will paraphrase it here.

In "American culture", the merest hint of "unequal representation", will place a major stumbling block in the hearts, minds and attitudes of the "governed". If history is to be referenced, there is probably no more a defining point of agreement among Americans. Somewhat a colonial carry over I suppose. It is similar to the old revolutionary cry of "taxation without representation".

My other question was somewhat related. It deals with the meaning of the words "peers" and "peerage". In American "culture" the word "peers" simply implies similarity or familiarity. I am inclined to believe that the British usage of "peerage" refers to something quite different. This is a "very important" concept in the American mind.
Judgement by ones "peers" means something a little different in Great Britain than in the United States. If I am not mistaken, "peerage" in Great Britain is meant to incorporate a class structure.

I well realize that this is your forum and you may set the governing rules as you wish. I do not mean to imply an absence of legality.....but I am questioning the old American definition of equality, which is deemed quite important in American "culture".

Since the forum moderators seem intent on stating their opinions on the "lack of American culture", and have stated that Americans are the major problem on this forum.....I feel that what I consider a "lack of legitimate representation", is just another slap in the face to America, and what might be considered a "cultured" way of asking us to leave.

As an afterthought I would like to add that the words "culture" and "class" have very different meanings. Culture certainly does not bestow class !

Charlie Black

Watching Big Brother is a must.

We'll see how things pan out. The setup seems well thought out with checks and balances.

If "not intervening unless asked to and only then after careful consideration with the moderating committee as a whole." is a general approach consistently adhered to by all moderators there should be no cause for complaints.

Hi Charles,

I'm of the opinion that a peer is someone of equal standing irrespective of class or culture, I am, and view others, as neither above nor beneath anyone. Where I come from that has been a very important concept to instil, and if you've followed the developments in NI you'll be aware of the much still work to be done on this.

John thank you, your appraisal is quite sound and echoes my own.

Thanks

Gary

I read that, which led to the above questions ...

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Hello Gary

I believe you when you say that you think " a peer is of equal standing irrespective of class or culture".

But what "you" think regarding this is not what is thought by a great percentage of people in an ethnically diverse and multi cultured country such as the U.S.

For example if a black man is on trial for the molestation of a white young lady, in a Southern U.S. city which happens to have a predominantly white population, he will probably legally go to trial before 12 white angry jurors.

Do you really believe that he would feel that he was being tried by a jury of HIS peers? The U.K., despite heritage and "some" cultural similarities,
is socially far removed from the "true facts of life" in the U.S.

Less than a hundred years ago, there were gunfights occurring still in the streets of some western U.S. cities.

If an American law enforcment officer were told that he could not carry a gun.....he would rightly refuse and probably accuse you of being insane.
When U.S. citizens are aware that the criminal element in this country all posess firearms, and if they were told by a politician that you cannot protect your wife and children with the use of equal force....I think that you would have an expatriate former U.S. politician looking for a job in the U.K. or elsewhere.

The U.S. and the U.K. do not necessarily share the same problems just because we somewhat share the same language.

In a manner of speaking, John Simkin is correct in that our cultures differ. But it isn't that simply explained. Some elements of American culture are quite similar to that in Great Britain. BUT.....
we are multi cultured....the Poles don't have the same culture as our Arabs, and our indigenous population does not share the same culture as our French population, or our Vietnamese or Hispanic.

We are quite intermixed.

That is why I feel that your definition of "peer" or "peerage" is necessarily different than ours.

Four hundred and fifty years ago, this continent was populated by what was commonly referred to as savages. Only Savages. Could the European colonist consider these "savages" as their peers?

Life here was a long and rugged struggle for survival...in the not distant past. We are still struggling. That is why I feel that demeaning comments regarding American culture are very far out of order. We are two English speaking peoples who have been subjected to a far differing past four centuries. We, here in the colonies, are not that distant from those times only a little over a hundred years ago, that a farmer carried a firearm with him when he plowed his fields if he was to be at all certain of returning.

Though I will be the one of the first and the loudest to say that we are two different societies and cultures......but I will never accept any insinuation that mine is lesser to ANY other.

I am proud to say that in defense of our welfare, that we can be quite agressive, and have had damned good reason to be.

My point being that we have been deliberately selected to be under represented by forum moderators, and this was done, in my opinion, as an insult !

Charlie Black

Evan

If you were referring to Jack White in your
"..little White lies" addendum, I feel strongly that you have disqualified yourself as a moderator!

Charlie Black

Charlie...I agree. Burton came to this forum to discredit Jack White. At the bottom of
every posting, he refers to me as a liar.

I have protested his being named a moderator to no avail. Apparently the forum
shares his views, since one of the administators called me a senile old snake, or
some such.

I suggest that the same rules apply to administrators that are imposed on members.

Jack

I will remove my signature after this post.

Jack,

I have never hid my bias against your opinions regarding Apollo and 9/11. This bias alone does NOT disqualify me from being a fair moderator within my assigned sub-forums.

I strongly urge you, if you perceive any bias against you (or your fellow travelers) in moderation, please report your concerns to the other moderators - and if you feel it is necessary John / Andy.

I am more than happy to have any actions of mine reviewed by my peers and the Forum management.

Charles / Charlie (I'm unsure as to your preferred method of title),

It's a understandable concern, but I believe an unfounded one. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, I would ask you to "... judge me not by the colour of my skin, but by the content of my character..."

If you feel any actions / posts of mine are not in keeping within the Forum guidelines, I'd urge you to report them to another moderator.

Charlie, just a thought. Could the underepresentation of American forum members as Moderators be because only one American member put their name foward for this unpaid, thankless task?As I said, just a thought.

Greetings fellow members and moderators.

I am looking forward to seeing this Forum (JFK section particularly), as the best source of information and discussion on the subject. Further, I do hope that I will not need to intervene as a moderator and that we can all use common courtesy and appropriate language when debating or discussing. The way I see it, it is just counterproductive and a waste of time and bandwidth.

As a moderator, I will do my best to follow the moderator guidelines as issued by John Simkin. I am also looking forward to being in touch with my fellow moderators regularly.

Let's all enjoy this wonderful source of information and the discussion board, which is provided for free my Mr. Simkin and Mr. Walker. If you have questions or concerns regarding moderation or whatever, please feel free to PM me, I do check in quite often.

Sincerely,
Antti Hynonen

We are not the United Nations where the US has a veto. Only one American offered to be a moderator (she was also the only woman). The others also volunteered for this unpleasant task. Now you have started criticizing the moderators before they have started their duties.

Remember, I pay for this forum. I have relinquished power to five volunteers. I have just about had enough from you ungrateful people. If you don't like the way this forum is run, go away and give us a rest from your pathetic bickering.

I apologise for my absence for the last few days, this was one of the few weeks that I had a full schedule.
I do not see the moderation committee as a reuglatory body, but rather a conciliatory one. We have been selected because we have a good rapport with everyone on this forum (by and large), thus we can mediate in disputes and diffuse them.

Most of the personal attacks that occur can be controlled (I would hope) by appealing to members sensibilities.
We will be here to ensure that people become less trigger happy when it comes to personal insults and to ensure a discussion that is more a debate than a brawl.

I have no doubt that we will receive numerous reports of abuse. I would encourage members to take up disputes with the moderation committee rather than John Simkin. We have all seen what John is caable in terms of research and interviewing skills, I feel that his talents are best used in this manner, rather than mediating petty disputes.
We are here to make the forum more time effective and to make it increasingly scholarly.

Personally, I have never had a serious dispute on this forum, perhaps it is because I do not get involved in certain dicussions, but I would like to think it is because that I have never made personal remarks towards a fellow member.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

I wish the committee and all members 'happy debating'!

My best to you all,
John Geraghty

My two cents worth:

I welcome the moderating group as a necessary addition to the forum.

If the members of the forum (myself included) were able to exchange
their points of view without resorting to name-calling there would be no
need for moderation.

I also think that questioning the wisdom of this action before any actions
have been taken by the committee is "jumping the gun".

Perhaps the very presence of this committee will have the desired effect
that members will self-police their posts?

If this is the case, and civility is restored, I am sure the committee members
will be thrilled if they find their newfound positions require no actions to be
taken on their part.

Having added my inflation adjusted two-cents worth, I now surrender the floor.

Well folks, John is shooting straight from the hip.

If you do not approve of or do not enjoy the benefits we all enjoy being here, we are free to leave and pursue our quest for truth elsewhere.

Personally, I think this is the best forum available anywhere at any price.

Can you argue that membership is not worth the price of admission when the price of admission being asked is simply to behave?

All concerned are to be congratulated and thanked in advance, IMO

John for finding a panel of helpers.

The Gang of Five for their substantial voluntary commitment.

Roll on the New Cultural Revolution: a global forum in which Poms, Yanks and everyone else disport with dignity, decency and even a modicum of honesty, just like the delightful human beings we really are, deep inside

Darn. I was looking forward to having Hugo Chavez come here and call Bush "El Diablo."

I'll send him an email, see if he is available. If not I will happily call El Presidente anything you require.

I appreciate the offer, and I must say that you are a full service moderator. Ok you're on.
I want you to call him what he really is: irrelevant.

He's the puppet the regime created, props up and controls. Charlie Mccarthy was more life-like and human.
So call him irrelevant.
Please and thank you.

And say it in Spanish like Prez Chavez would.

File this in the "Media Sophistication" bin:

On the day President Chavez offered his keen observation of the UN General Assembly's air quality, Chris Matthews keenly observed that the Venezuelan chief of state was making "fart jokes" at the expense of President Doody.

Crazy Chris missed the reference entirely.

What were the chances?

Good post, Evan.

While I don't believe the moderators should be required to inform the forum of where they stand on the various issues of contention, I'm grateful that you have submitted this background information.

I would like to thank the moderators for doing a great job on the forum. They seem to have been more successful than I ever was in keeping people from insulting each other.

They are currently trying to persuade all members to add a photograph as a avatar. I hope that all members will abide by this rule.

We expect members to add a photograph as an avatar (it helps to humanize communications):

Select “My Controls” (top, right of the screen).

On the left-hand side click ‘Edit Avatar Settings’ (under Personal Profile).

Go to the bottom of the page where it says ‘Upload a new image from your computer’. Click ‘Browse’.

(A box will appear at the top that will show what is on your computer. You now have to find your photograph (best to leave it on your Desktop – if not, find the folder where you have stored it).

Click the image and then click ‘Open’.

Now click ‘Update Avatar’. You picture should now appear on the screen. It will now appear every time you make a posting.

If you have difficulty in this, please send me your photograph by email and I will do it for you (you will also need to send me your password).

I've now added an avatar pic and will resume posting again.

John,

Hope you can still catch some of this. Radio host Alex Jones, from Austin, TX has St. John Hunt on right now. Hunt is talking about his father's role in JFK and in
Watergate:

http://www.infowars.com/listen.html

Regards,
JG

Oh abso-friggen-lutely.

For example, this kind of thing...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10014
Today, 06:15 AM
QUOTE(Thomas Graves...
"P.S. To new member David G., if you want to find the pertinent posts between Tosh and Ms. Bee, I suggest that you simply plug in the search term "b****," because that's what Tosh called her right before he left The Forum."

...simply doesn't happen anymore.

And neither does this...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9964&st=15
"May 14 2007, 06:51 AM
QUOTE(Thomas Graves @ May 14 2007, 01:46 AM) *
...
P.S. Do you still think "Tosh" Plumlee was one of the conspirators? (I remember his calling you a #@&!$ in his last or next-to-last post. It made my day!)"

Myra, we can not control what every individual member posts. If there are obscenities or flat out insults or other Forum rule violations we will do our best to deal with them as fast as we can.

From time to time, there may be moments when no moderators are present, like today. Personally, I will edit anything which I deem inappropriate. I will also not hesitate to send a PM to a member who clearly fails to follow Forum rules. It is likely that we will not see every issue that would need attention, therefore members are encouraged to report posts to moderators.

I have already begun to deal with this issue and the half dozen reports and PM's that I have received from you these past few hours. Sorry for the delay.

Well maybe, as I've told you all in the past, you mods should get in synch when there is an issue instead of everybody jumping
in and bumping into each other.

Because Antti had already handled things, very well I might add, then Gary managed to make things much worse.
I really resent his actions and words.

I do not think he should be a moderator.

Myra

Myra,
The moderators use the same methods of contact as you do. All of the moderators live in different time zones, so it is likely that we will check private messages and respond to them before we take a look at the forum.

None of us want to see insults on the forum, but unless you suggest we take pre-emptive action, there is not much we can do apart from respond to them after the fact. I'm not planning on constantly consulting with Antti in Finland or Evan in Australia as I simply have not got the cash, so we are just going to have to live with that.

I suggest that we simply drop the issue, as there is not going to any resolution as long as people consistently engage in ridiculous arguments. I suggest that people (whoever) take the high ground and walk away from this matter. Give me a PM if you want to discuss it further.
I just want to see a resolution to this by the end of the day, whatever time zone we are in.

All the best,
John

Make sense. Thanks John.

I guess I would only ask that moderators monitor insults and harassment with as much vigilance as they do swear words.

Indeed we will Myra.
All the best,
John

Indeed you did.
Thank you for taking the time to put your foot down in the JFK Lancer thread John.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10218&st=15

As I always do, I will begin by saying that this is an extremely good forum. I am very pleased by the diversity of the topics presented. There is certainly something here for everyone, and I have learned alot by reading these posts.

And as well, I am certainly impressed with the membership we have. Some of the greatest researchers in the world are actively contributing to the inquiries of others.

However, it saddens me greatly when I find that a debate has turned "sour', and has become a personal argument in which the information originally presented becomes secondary to personal attacks.

These are good people, who, for one reason or another, become angry and openly create a situation that becomes vitriolic, and the effect of the positions debated is lessened.

I can certainly understand the frustration, as I have been in much the same situation, but this still does not excuse the behavior.

I am also bothered by the fact, that when it is brought to one's attention that he/she is overstepping bounds, that no thought is taken of that observation, and it continues.

And then, on the other hand,there are those who would be more noble--that retract, that rethink-- thank you for this on behalf of the Forum. It shows a level of magnanimity. These are worthy of more respect. (I do not need to name you.) It takes alot of courage to apologize,or to retract one's wording, especially when seen by so many.

Perhaps we are reacting too quickly in our responses, and we should take a moment to consider a better way to respond. I am hopeful that we can better fight our positions, as positions, and keep a level of respect for each other.

This is supposed to be a research resource ,and
I am absolutely amazed at this!!! Forgive me if I read this wrong but we have to "be nice and play along " so he will deliver? Heck, no!!!!Not me!!!!
Mr. Dolva, I have read many of your posts, and for the most part they are well thought out and fairly logical (with a few, here and there, that I just didn't understand, but they looked really good.) For you to have to watch what you say, and ask us to do the same,for we might upset the old boy, (and you won't get your map)is ridiculous. Since when are we less than he?
Compartmentalising??????
If you didn't have such an interest in this map, I don't believe you'd cater to him like this.

This is not a mental health forum, and I lack the expertise in creating an enviornment that Tom won't be compartmentalized and will be "encouraged to grow" in.

I leave that to you. I'm done.


Kathy Beckett



An interesting philosophy!

Even more interesting when one actually practices what they preach.

Since most of those attachements, which include virtually every aspect of the Time/Life Survey Plat; the US Secret Service Survey Plat; the FBI Survey Plat; as well as the later WC Survey Plat; and finally, the last FBI Survey Plat;, to include tremendous amounts of information relative to the survey notes of Mr. West, were provided on this forum long prior to your short visit, and since you did not bother to even check this information out prior to "launching" your erroneous statements, then:

Could one expect some magnanimous gesture on your part?



Perhaps we are reacting too quickly in our responses, and we should take a moment to consider a better way to respond.


A response, which has a basis and foundation in fact, is usually the best type of response.

Thomas,

I wrote this as well in that quote.

'I can certainly understand the frustration, as I have been in much the same situation, but this still does not excuse the behavior."


Kathy
BTW, this had nothing to do with either you or "your maps".

I am asking members to use the "Report" function, found on the left hand side of each post, that is when they deem that there is something inappropriate in a post. It is a huge task for moderators to carefully follow and read each post, therefore I am officially requesting the help of members in "monitoring" posts.

Thank you.

On another thread I recently made a post asking members not to threaten other members on this Forum. I particularly mentioned the types of threats that were recently visible on this thread.
The consequence I said, would be that I'd send a request to John Simkin to have any such members placed on permanent moderation.

This request, I have now put forward.

I repeat, do not threaten fellow members or anyone else on this Forum.

THIS IN TOTALLY INSANE. NOW THE MODERATORS ARE DISRUPTING THE THREAD. I ASKED TIM TO STOP DIVERTING THE THREAD AND TRYING TO DERAIL IT BY ENDLESSLY POSTING ON SEVERAL WITH OFF-TOPIC AND NAGGING REMARKS. I HAVE TRIED SENDING SUCH 'REPORTS' TO THE MODERATORS, BUT 99% OF THE TIME NOTHING IS DONE. THEN HE STARTS WITH THE UNTRUE, ALREADY DISCUSSED NEGATIVE INFORMATION ON ME - WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE TREAD; NOT TRUE; DISCUSSED BY HIM, ME AND OTHERS ON ANOTHER THREAD AND ONLY HIS WAY TO INTIMIDATE AND HURL VENOM AT ME. SO HE GETS SOME 'BREAK' BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SAY HE'D DO IT...HE JUST DOES IT?! AND BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE 'REPORT' PROCESS - I THINK I MIGHT EVEN HAVE - DON'T REMEMBER TO TELL THE TRUTH. HE AND OTHERS HAVE EVEN THREATENED TO SUE PEOPLE ON THE FORUM IN COURT...AND NONE WERE BANNED.  I THINK THE IMMODERATORS SHOULD LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, MAYBE ASK WHAT IS GOI
G ON - MAYBE READ THE POSTS BEFORE THE ONE THEY FOCUS UPON, AND ONE ABOVE HAS AN AXE T
 GRIND WITH ME ANYWAY, AND WOULD TAKE DELIGHT IN NEGATIVE THINGS HAPPENING TO ME
 SO VERY GOOD GANG - GRATZ AND THE IMMODERATORS HAVE DERAILED THE THREAD ON PLUMLEE. 

I'D ALSO ADD THAT ANY IMMODERATOR WHO PROPOSES PERMANANT BANNING BEFORE TEMPORARY BANNING OR BANNING WITHOUT CAUSE SHOULD THEMSELVES BE BANNED. [POWER SEEMS TO CORRUPT]. AND HOW ABOUT LOOKING AT A PERSONS GENERAL DEPORT ON THE FORUM. I DON'T KNOW IF SOME OF THE IMMODERATORS ARE MYOPTIC AND ONLY LOOK AT THE REPORT BEFORE THEM [IT SEEMS OFTEN SO] WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GREATER PICTURE. I SEE SOME ON THE FORUM WHO ONLY HURL NEGATIVE, DISRUPTIVE AND INVECTIVE AND THEY SEEM TO REMAIN. WHEN A NORMAL POSTER RESPONDS TO THEIR ACTIVITIES THEY OFTEN GET THREATENED BY THE IMMODERATORS.

SO GROUP YOU GO FIND OUT ABOUT PLUMLEE YOURSELVES.

Apparently your message above is primarily about your concern that the previous posts were on the Plumlee thread and that it was being disrupted due to this. Fair enough. I have moved them to the moderation section of the Forum.

With regards to nothing being done, I respectfully disagree. I tried sending you some PM's as a response to the action I have taken based on your numerous reports, however, your inbox was too full. Sorry.

I don't need to analyze any groups of threads or dozens of posts to see what moderation action I ought to undertake, typically I look at one post at a time to determine if it is ok, or if it is in violation of Forum rules.

I thought it was an example of the moderation system working.

Two complaints were made about the posts, so there was concern about them. Three moderators agreed that there might be cause for concern. The posts were made invisible (not deleted, not edited) and the matter was referred to higher authority - John Simkin.

John reviewed the matter, and decided that no action was required and no Forum rules were being broken. The posts were made visible again.

All parties had their views taken into account, and a decision was made - in Peter's favour.

End of story. This took about 9 hours; not bad considering the different time zones and the need to have John involve himself.

I am, upon reflexion, not happy at my rash action, but the moderation system seems biased in FAVOR of the provocateurs. A few very outspoken persons on the Forum, myself included, are their repeated targets. I recieved two PMs from one usin obscene language...followed up a few weeks later with a PM celebratory that my dog had died...the dearest and ONLY significant other in my life! This DOES effect how one will react when one of those persons who has been provoking [without the moderators doing anything to them] posts a new obvious or hidden provacative message on one's thread. I also, Antti resent what I think happened here...that Burton who watches me like a hawk as he did Jack, looking for the slightest infraction, saw one and not wanting his fingerprints on the dispatch weapon called you in [a rather disciplinary type] and you suggested I be PERMANENTLY moderated before even a warning or temporary moderation.....I suggest the whole system needs to be changed. I often, lately, had been sending 'notify' messages over obstructive posts, but got no answer and NO my mailbox has not been full until today and you could also send an email. I don't buy that excuse. Yet another provacateur posted that he was better than I because he had lots of big cars [SUVs] and more money than I! [and this kind of obscenity goes uncommented on by the moderators].....and then when Gratz, on a Plumlee dead thread, posts for the THIRD time the untruth and provocative message that I had 'lost a small fortune working with a con artist', yes, I over-reacted...but that is what provocateurs do and the moderators don't seem to 'get'.
I've said my piece....but I am not  happy with the many, many disruptive and provocative posts that nothing is done about. I'd also point out that provocateurs by their very nature are more apt to push the notify button. I have two person on ignore and often don't see their provocations at me unless someone else quotes them. The whole system is biased toward the provacteurs.....not good! At all! IMO