The Farce Forum

[Myra Bronstein]

Okay kids - enough rough-housing. Playtime is over. Thread locked.

I disagree and have opened it. People should be free to defend themselves against Ashton's attacks. He should also be free to post his defence of his comments.

Thank you for keeping the thread intact and open John.

[Myra Bronstein]

FWIW a few anagrams of Ashton Gray:

has got yarn

thorny saga

angry oaths

hoary angst

hasty groan

snag thy oar

rag any host

You truly have a gift Ron.

[John Simkin]

I'm glad the thread is still open. I think many of the points brought up by Ashton, and that have been brought up by others before deserve address. I'm not going to go into each and everything Ashton said and especially not to any of the specific persons he points the finger of blame at. I'd agree with some, not all. What he sees as a problem, however, I'd have to generally agree with.

Some persons here are the Forum are very serious and dedicated and want more than anything to get to the bottom of various deep-political magic tricks we have been subjected to. It is not easy. There is often a lot more noise, than signal. Some of those who I, or Ashton and others might consider the 'noise', as opposed to the 'signal' are just uninformed IMO, others sole purpose here is to block, derail progress and threads, disrupt streams of progress and cooperation ongoing between others. An open Forum in the name of freedom of speech and allowing all opinions is fine, in theory, but some mechanism has to be arrived at to allow those who want to work productively and in concert are not spending most of their energy deflecting those who would only try to debunk, thwart, sabatoge and discredit without merit the work and posts of others. It is true that more time and effort is needed to put forth truth, than a simple and often knowing lie/debunk/naysay/doubt without merit/questioning of sourcing/questioning of the person cited, etc. I believe this problem and food-fight atmosphere that sometimes appears on the Forum is the main reason [not their busy lives] that so many very good researchers, writers and thinkers have put their toes into the waters of this Forum and then withdrawn. I one day looked at the entire list of those who are memebers. There are some fantastic names on that list, but few post....they made a 'guest' appearance and then withdrew. I think the problem above is part of the reason. A higher bar of expertise for entry might help. A much higher bar of keeping things on topic if and when a threadstarter complains about something being an attempt to derail the thread. [it need not be destroyed, but maybe moved to another or new thread]. Removal by some mechanism of those who constantly disrupt is needed. Those that have been moderated and removed were for the most part not derailing threads, but were punished for language use or supposed ad hominum attacks [often in response] to contant ones against themselves. I'm sad Ashton has withdrawn, but I understand his frustration. The lengh and breadth of his posts and the obvious energy and research behind them (even if one doesn't agree with them) is a testiment to his devotion to seeking the truth on some subjects. That is not to say I agree[d] with all of his conclusions all the time.

Those who just obstruct I've never seen leave on their own accord. Many others have and will. A few will hang on and the Forum has much good information and work has been done... but much, much less than should have been accomplished IMO. I don't know all the answers, and am not going to point any fingers here. I hope others may also have some input on this. John Simkin is not the culprit. That said perhaps a few minor changes in the Forum could make it possible for more positive work to proceed and still allow those with opposing opinions on a subject [often heated and passionate] to each have their say... perhaps on matched, but separate threads. Another measure might be a maximum number of thread derailments and then a temporary ban....longer each time the derailment limit is reached. We each have our own opinons, but derailment and trying to thwart a thread is not in the spirit of getting to the truth....exactly wha the blocker often has in mind [to not allow the truth to be exposed]. We'd not all agree on where the truth lies, nor who is blocking it, I know...but a simple vote, I believe, would show surprisingly many names who that appear on many person's lists. I'm not proposing this, but pointing it out. It only takes a few to disrupt the many and make the Education Forum from one on a University level to one at a gradeschool level, at times. As Bill Kelly and others have pointed out, the best of research often has to be done off-Forum, as here there are too many disruptive influences to bring in the really new and controversial research we might be working on. Just some thoughts. Take Care Ashton, I meant what I wrote you privately.

I agree that this forum should have achieved much more than it has. The quality of debate could be improved if we removed certain members. Other important researchers would join if they could be ensured that they would not face critical comments. In other words, you could turn this forum into an exclusive club where members share a basic philosophy. A great many forums end up that way. However, I don't think this would be a good thing. Nor do I think it would improve the quality of research. As you say, most of the most important sharing of information goes on off-Forum. Nor would it solve Ashton's problems. He has shown over the years that he does not take kindly to people disagreeing with him. My view is that if your theories are well thought out, they can stand up to criticism. Although it is true I get upset by Tim Gratz's "spoiling tactics", it is good that we do have someone who questions the information from the "right".

[Mike Williams]

I feel there is something I need to add here. I have not been here long, and am slowly acquainting myself to my surroundings, but would like to offer a suggestion to not only Mr. Gray, but to anyone else who feels his plight. Part of research, and education, is being able to discern fact from fiction. While I admire the dedication and integrity of those like Mr. Gray, and can certainly understand the feeling of quashing disinformation, ultimately it is the responsibility of the reader to sift the wheat from the chaff.

If someone posts something that is outlandish in my opinion, I may submit a brief reply as to why I do not agree, but generally leave it at that. I try not to become bogged down in ridiculous discussion, mainly because there is nothing productive in it. I simply read the thread, and either build on its merits or discredit it as foolishness.

mis/disinformation has two types, intentional and unintentional. I disregard those I see as intentional completely. My grandfather always said "never argue with a fool, if you do it long enough folks won't be able to tell the difference in who the fool really is."

I may reply to what I believe is unintentional mis/disinformation, as briefly as possible, to make a point as to why I do not agree, and then I leave it at that.

In short Mr. Gray, there is no need to leave, just disregard the posts you see as foolish, and allow others to sift the wheat from the chaff of their own accord. I admire your integrity, and certainly understand the position in your feeling of responsibility to correct bad information, but again, that is for each reader to do for themselves. If this were something we all practiced then the dis/misinformation would dwindle....after all who would the problem children,as you perceive them, than have to argue with??

Best Regards,

Semper Fi,

Mike

[Mark Knight]

I feel there is something I need to add here. I have not been here long, and am slowly acquainting myself to my surroundings, but would like to offer a suggestion to not only Mr. Gray, but to anyone else who feels his plight. Part of research, and education, is being able to discern fact from fiction. While I admire the dedication and integrity of those like Mr. Gray, and can certainly understand the feeling of quashing disinformation, ultimately it is the responsibility of the reader to sift the wheat from the chaff.

If someone posts something that is outlandish in my opinion, I may submit a brief reply as to why I do not agree, but generally leave it at that. I try not to become bogged down in ridiculous discussion, mainly because there is nothing productive in it. I simply read the thread, and either build on its merits or discredit it as foolishness.

mis/disinformation has two types, intentional and unintentional. I disregard those I see as intentional completely. My grandfather always said "never argue with a fool, if you do it long enough folks won't be able to tell the difference in who the fool really is."

I may reply to what I believe is unintentional mis/disinformation, as briefly as possible, to make a point as to why I do not agree, and then I leave it at that.

In short Mr. Gray, there is no need to leave, just disregard the posts you see as foolish, and allow others to sift the wheat from the chaff of their own accord. I admire your integrity, and certainly understand the position in your feeling of responsibility to correct bad information, but again, that is for each reader to do for themselves. If this were something we all practiced then the dis/misinformation would dwindle....after all who would the problem children,as you perceive them, than have to argue with??

Best Regards,

Semper Fi,

Mike

Well said, Mike.

Over the past few years, I've learned a great deal here about the assassination...and about various persons' ability [or lack thereof] to handle questions and/or criticism. Some think that if you're not 100% with them, you're 100% against them...I call them the "Group W's," after both President George W. Bush, and the Arlo Guthrie masterpiece, Alice's Restaurant.

Others are more accepting of a more nuanced understanding of the assassination. And early in my days here, I was often drawn into the black hole, sinking to the level of the insult-swappers. But I've come to realize that some here simply wish to derail any serious discussion of the assassination that doesn't square with their beliefs...dogma vs. a rational discussion of the facts, if you will. These days I tend to avoid the posts of these people, but I'm still human and occasionally slip.

For the most part, folks like Pat Speer have tended to ADD to the collective knowledge accumulated on the forum, by looking at the old evidence thruough new eyes. And many will disagree with me, but I think Tom Purvis' use of the surveyor's data is another example of that technique. Folks, 99% of the evidence that will ever exist in the JFK assassination has already seen the light of day, IMHO. It's up to folkis like us to open our minds to new and different interpretations of that evidence, and to decide for ourselves what makes sense and what makes no sense.

So this forum, IMHO, is still of value. Ashton Gray has contributed to the understanding of the facts of the assassination, and I would think he should get over his snit-fit and realize that a certain percentage of the folks get it, a certain percentage will never get it, and most here are simply seeking the truth. And the truth-seekers [usually] don't deserve to be served up a hearty helping of insults and condescention with their "minimum daily requirement" of facts.

[Douglas Caddy]

This forum once was a place of rational discussion and relevant facts related to important issues in history.

In recent months it has been turned over to disinformation scum who dump wholly irrelevant and unanalyzed garbage into it by the truckload—which not only is condoned by the administrators, but actually has been endorsed by John Simkin.

I've recently posted two parody posts in just two of the insanely off-topic and irrelevant threads that John Bevilaqua started for no other purpose except to provide a stage where he and Tim Gratz can absolutely flood the forum with this wholesale useless trash and keep their phony Punch 'n' Judy show going to drown out as much rationality as possible with demented off-topic noise. Those parody posts of mine soon will be deleted as the first of my posts in this forum to be deleted. The rest of my contributions over the past year and a half to this forum have been graciously archived by several people, and also will incrementally be deleted over time as they are reposted elsewhere in locations where reasonable and rational people maintain order and provide a safe environment for dissemination and reasoned discussion of relevant facts and truth.

While I have the greatest of admiration for what Simkin and Walker set out to do with the establishment of these forums, and while I owe a debt of gratitude to both for allowing me to present in these forums the evidence and work so hard won, I no longer wish to have my works associated with what this forum now has been converted to.

I am deeply indebted to several members of this forum for their tireless dedication to getting at the truth and the rational discussion and analysis of facts, and it has been a supreme honor to have had a chance to meet you and correspond with you. I have learned much from you. I expect you will be apprised in some way when my works are reposted elsewhere. You will be welcomed there, and I always welcome personal communication from you, which you can access with PMs through this forum until and unless Simkin or Walker elect to cancel my membership here.

Ashton Gray

The long awaited, much anticipated and most welcomed voluntary departure of that person who calls himself "Ashton Gray" will improve the forum's gene pool to such an extent that it cannot be measured.

[Tim Gratz]

Speaking of which, i notice that Gray never got around to posting a bio.

[John Simkin]

Speaking of which, i notice that Gray never got around to posting a bio.

That is incorrect. He still has it on his signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6944

[Courtney Redd]

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

Reasoning ability was given to us all. Deciding the veracity of posts--separating the wheat from the chaff--is part of the fun of being here, I think. Sharpens your skills as a critical thinker. Scholarship depends on those critical thinking skills and being able to keep an open mind.

[Ashton Gray]

Speaking of which, i notice that Gray never got around to posting a bio.

That is incorrect. He still has it on his signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6944

I rest my case.

Ashton Gray

[David G. Healy]

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

Reasoning ability was given to us all. Deciding the veracity of posts--separating the wheat from the chaff--is part of the fun of being here, I think. Sharpens your skills as a critical thinker. Scholarship depends on those critical thinking skills and being able to keep an open mind.

Most who post at this end of the Education Forum, namely the JFK Assassination section are NOT interested in scholarship, critical thinking, or teaching about [or concerning] the assassination. Most here are beyond reason. Most here understand that the WCR IS the "chaff". And finally, most of us do NOT consider this FUN. In fact some consider this W-A-R.

There are as many agendas here as there are posters. Yes, even John Simkin and Andy Walker have agenda -- and I suspect you do too!

Welcome to the cover-up of the CENTURY

Edited November 11, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

Reasoning ability was given to us all. Deciding the veracity of posts--separating the wheat from the chaff--is part of the fun of being here, I think. Sharpens your skills as a critical thinker. Scholarship depends on those critical thinking skills and being able to keep an open mind.

"Reasoning ability was given to us all."

Although I too would like for there to actually be a "utopia" in which such ideology exists, 60+ years of experience with the human species demonstrates that this is not a factual appraisal of the species.

However, I will concede, that unless for some specific reason otherwise, we all have the ability to learn and develop the capability for independent and self-reasoning thought.

That happens to be the primary element which separates us from those other creatures on this planet.

However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

[Myra Bronstein]

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

Reasoning ability was given to us all. Deciding the veracity of posts--separating the wheat from the chaff--is part of the fun of being here, I think. Sharpens your skills as a critical thinker. Scholarship depends on those critical thinking skills and being able to keep an open mind.

Most who post at this end of the Education Forum, namely the JFK Assassination section are NOT interested in scholarship, critical thinking, or teaching about [or concerning] the assassination. Most here are beyond reason. Most here understand that the WCR IS the "chaff". And finally, most of us do NOT consider this FUN. In fact some consider this W-A-R.

There are as many agendas here as there are posters. Yes, even John Simkin and Andy Walker have agenda -- and I suspect you do too!

Welcome to the cover-up of the CENTURY

I have to agree with DH here.

This is not a game.

And characterizing devotion to researching the murder of our last good president as "fun" is way off the mark.

We are in a propaganda war. And we are seriously outgunned.

That's why it is especially frustrating when the propaganda trolls have the run of the place, when their posts seem to comprise 70-80% of all threads, and when the signal to noise ratio is so unfavorable to sincere researchers that they take their signals and go elsewhere.

I agree with some of the sentiments Ashton expressed. I agree with the sentiments Peter expressed and appreciate the diplomatic way he expressed them. And I appreciate the fact that John left this thread open to give me a chance to say that I wish the Ed forum did not reflect the real world in the percentage of propaganda versus truth. I wish the Ed forum was an antidote to the real world instead of a mirror of it.

The corporate media spends 24/7 x 365 spewing lies about President Kennedy's murder. And dedicated researchers have very few places to congregate and discuss the truth and the evidence. This would be a better place to wage our war for truth if we didn't have to battle the ubiquitous garrulous trolls at the same time.

I reject the argument that the trolls keep us sharp and help us refine our arguments. The outside world serves that purpose daily/yearly/constantly. We don't need forums that mirror the outside world. We need places that give us a sanctuary from the outside world. We need resources to make it easier, not harder, to discuss facts and ideas and learn from others.

The trolls are seriously jeopardizing the work we're trying to do here with their constant heckling and monopolizing of threads. And I understand the frustration behind some of the posts in this thread even if I'm not thrilled with the rhetoric and tactics.

[Charles Drago]

However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.

This from a man in uniform.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.

This from a man in uniform.

This from someone who claims to be a man, yet apparantly has not served his country in the armed forces???

Exactly where was it that you "hid" at Charles?

You reap the benefits from those who have fought and/or fought and died, and yet make some feeble attempt to dishonor the uniform and those who wore it and for whatever reason chose to support their country.

Rest assured that if those who continue to wear the uniform believed that they were doing so merely so that those such as yourself could continue to enjoy the freedoms we earned, then they too would most probably throw in the towel and determine that you and your kind are hardly worth dieing for.

You are merely one of those "peripheral leeches" who want to enjoy the rewards without having to either earn the right or risk the dangers of what it takes to have a free society.