Jump to content
The Education Forum

James R Gordon

Admin
  • Content Count

    912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About James R Gordon

  • Rank
    Admin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

15,843 profile views
  1. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Yes, this is a fair point. I am not sure how comprehensive such a list will. I am also concerned whether publishing such a list might not infringe rights. I will look into it.
  2. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Denis, James Fetzer is not a member. He may have been at some point, but he is not listed in the current membership. James
  3. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    I agree Ray. The operative phrase is that the idea is posted in the members own words. It is probably better if the source of the idea - the banned member - is not referenced. This way the member has found and idea they believe is interesting and shared it with the forum. Referencing the banned member allows interpretation that it is the banned member and his ideas that are being posted. James
  4. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Kathleen, I agree with the way you wanted to give credit to the views of Gary Mack. Gary Mack would never be affected by this ruling: he was never banned. But if - for example - you said X was the view of Brian Doyle that would be different. Because - unlike the late Gary Mack - Brian was banned and Gary was never banned. He just did not post because of conflict with his position. James.
  5. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Sandy, I can see what you are trying to distinguish between. The problem is that in either case you have become a surrogate for the banned member. The banned member's views - and why these views are considered to be important, have now been placed on the forum. In a number of instances it was these views - and how they were expressed - that was what got the member banned in the first place. I can appreciate why it could be argued that there should be exceptions to the rule. But the moment the forum allows exceptions then the rule will effectively disintegrate. So - I am sorry - but there can be no exceptions. James.
  6. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Eddie, Those are the conditions if you want to post on this forum. There are other forums that are not so concerned about this kind of behaviour, you might prefer to post there.
  7. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Paz, From what I know of you Paz, I do not see you as the kind of person who would agree to do such a thing. There is a difference between you and Brian Doyle, you have integrity. James.
  8. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Michael, Where earlier today your cross-posting with Tom Scully would not have breached any rules. Were you to post later today or at a point thereafter - then you would be in breach. Be assured you would be dealt with. The members of the admin team are not going to create a rule that punishes one member and not another. Such ambiguity in the rules allows breaching in the rules and for members to argue that what they did was not in breach. What you did with Tom Scully was entirely o.k before today. But as of my posting this thread - if repeated - it will lead to you being disciplined. James.
  9. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    Jim, Until late today you were not breaking any rules. What happened is that you raised an issue the forum had not anticipated or had rules to cover. Were you to repeat in a new post now then you would be in conflict with the rules. But I know you to be someone who would not do that. Regards James.
  10. James R Gordon

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    A member of this forum alerted me to the fact that one of our current members was essentially the opinions of a banned member - in this case Brian Doyle. What this issue has raised - and it is why I closed the thread till I could find an answer to it - is that if allowed to continue a banned member ( in this case Brian Doyle ) has now found a voice on our forum through another member. Whether witting, or unwitting, the current member has allowed himself to become the surrogate through which this banned member is now able to continue posting. This is not something the members of the admin team can allow to continue. In the next few hours the rules are going to be edited to reflect this change in what is acceptable on our forum. From this point on - even though the rules are yet to be edited - it will be an offence for any current member to voice the opinions and theories of any banned member. Any current member found to be doing that will immediately be place on “two posts a day” - which as everyone knows is actually a euphemism for being denied posting rights. The term of the punishment will be determined by admin. There will be no fixed term, the term therefore could be a short or long period as determined the members of the admin team. James.
  11. I am going to pause this thread for a period of time. I have a reason, but at present I do not want to make it public. James.
  12. James R Gordon

    JFK's Back wound

    Cliff, here is a clearer copy of the Face Sheet. I see DVP has yet to contribute to this topic. The impossibilty of any bullet traveling from the back - ignoring its trajectory angle from the Oswald window to JFK' back - and still exit out the throat seem apparent to all. However, I am sure David will rehash his already heard arguments. James
  13. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David. When I initially posted these values I believed I had made an error. Infact I had not I had meerly posted incorrect values. Therefore I stand by my initial position. My position is that the 17.72º trajectory would not strike the 5th rib,bit it may well the 4th rib. Link to File:-
  14. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David, I am certain you know exactly what I am saying. But I will spell it out here. A trajectory of 17.72º compared to am trajectory of 27º will ALWAYS will flow vertically upwards. I suggested that such a bullet is likely hit the 4th rib instead of the 5th rib. That is what I meant when I stated that two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination. The same destination being the 5th rib. Do you now understand my point?
  15. James R Gordon

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David, It has nothing to do with my diagram which may or may not be incorrect, It has everything to do with Maths and Trigonometry. Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination.
×