Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Future of the JFK Forum


Recommended Posts

I can't add much beyond John's opening post.

Some egregious fawners have been constantly reporting Jim to moderators. The mail from Albarelli appears to have given John the reason needed to remove Jim. I suspect the long standing Simkin, Janney, Di Eugenio argument is in play also.

Tom appears to be collateral damage and suffers from the finding of Mitchell and his querying of Priscilla n McMillan Johnson. Those whose credibility was impacted most by Tom's questioning probably had undue influence in John's decision.

Moderators found out about the membership deletions at the same time as the membership.

Though I think John did the wrong thing we have to give him credit, few forum owners would have allowed someone who had attacked them, the way Jim had, in as a member. Jim put John down a few more times after joining. But then again I think just about every active member has been put down a few times by people who disagree with them.

Some members have been highly critical of the moderators. Though I've often been displeased by their actions they have a difficult job, no matter what they do some members will accuse them of being too hard on them and their allies or too easy on those they disagree with. That said they could lessen such bitching by being more open. The is a thread specificity for moderator actions were they are suppose to note what they've done and why; it would only take a few seconds to type out 'John Doe's 6/9/13 post on the xxxxxxxx thread made invisible/deleted due to a personal attack' etc.

​I've noticed a few mods have essentially disappeared from the forum and even if Tom is allowed back as a member is unlikely to regain his post, perhaps it's time for some new ones.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning.

There is much outright crap posted here by dilettantes, agenda-driven shills and the historically-challenged - all considered fair game by moderators who fail to act - yet those who draw attention to the fact that it is outright crap are the ones “moderated.”

The imbalance of moderation - letting David Lifton question the mental health of other members, but acing his victims when they respond in kind - is not “moderation;” it is sucking up and fawning of the most egregious sort.

Those too faint of heart to man up when their hokum is rightly labeled as hokum should be shown the door. They waste everyone’s time, moderators included.

That they are published authors means nothing; we've all read books that contribute nothing to the debate, but distract attention from the exploration of the most fruitful areas, even if they top the New York Times' bestsellers list. Such authors should and must be challenged, irrespective of who they are.

I agree with John Simkin - for whom I have great respect - that this Forum has been on a downhill slide for some time. The moderators have done nothing to slow the decline, but actually contributed to it with their one-sided punishments.

If it continues, the loss of one’s membership will be a badge of honour, rather than a slight.

In closing, despite my occasional confrontations with him over evidence and how it is to be interpreted, I won't stay anywhere Jim DiEugenio is unwelcome.

Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning.

[...]

[...]

Dear Robert,

The problem is, on this forum one man's "outright lie" is often times another man's "honest mistake" or poorly-stated "belief."

In other words, generally speaking--

A ) Is an over-enthusiastic Conspiracy Theorist who, for whatever reason, can't seem to get his facts straight (or just poorly states his mistaken beliefs), considered a "xxxx" or an "embellisher" by his peers at the JFK Assassination Debate? No. "The poor guy just can't get his facts straight. Too bad he's screwing it a little for the beginners here." Or, even worse, "Wow! I didn't know that!"

On the other hand,

B ) Is an over-enthusiastic "Lone Nut" Theorist who can't get his facts straight considered a "xxxx" or an "embellisher?" by his peers on this forum? Generally speaking, yes. "He's a shill, a disinfo specialist, a CIA agent!!!"

Although I personally have little tolerance for anyone on this forum that can't get their facts straight (ironic coming from me because I've made my share of mistakes here!), that doesn't mean that I automatically consider them to be a xxxx. I just consider him or her to be an overly-enthusiastic, ill-informed, careless person.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is with those who repeatedly state as fact things that have no basis whatsoever in fact, and try to pass off this information as accepted truth. If a person who makes an occasional mistake admits that they have made a mistake, I don't consider that person to be a xxxx. I've made my share of honest mistakes, and I try to make sure that I correct them. Some folks make untrue statements SO often here, it begins to fall into a pattern...as if they're trying to slide something by the unsuspecting folks.

We are, after all, part of something called The Education Forum. If we cannot stick to the truth, exactly how accurate an "educational service" are we providing to those who come behind us? My position here is that you are entitled to manufacture your own theories as to how the JFK assassination came to occur; you are NOT entitled to manufacture your own facts. Those who attempt to do so should, by everything that is right in the universe, be called out for that; and those who repeatedly do so should be called exactly what they are.

Apparently, my position conflicts with that of Mr. Simkin. For that, I will never apologize. But it causes me sadness to know that what began as an educational resource is now a forum in which the value of truth becomes secondary to decorum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning.

[...]

[...]

Dear Robert,

The problem is, on this forum one man's "outright lie" is often times another man's "honest mistake" or poorly-stated "belief."

In other words, generally speaking--

A ) Would an over-enthusiastic Conspiracy Theorist who, for whatever reason, couldn't seem to get his facts straight (or just poorly stated his mistaken beliefs), be considered an "outright xxxx" or an "embellisher" by his peers at the JFK Assassination Debate? No. "The poor guy just can't get his facts straight. Too bad he's screwing it up a little for the beginners here." Or worse, "Wow! I didn't know that!"

On the other hand,

B ) Would an over-enthusiastic "Lone Nut" Theorist who couldn't get his facts straight be considered an "outright xxxx" or an "embellisher?" by his peers on this forum? Generally speaking, yes. "He's a shill, a disinfo specialist, a CIA agent!!!"

Although I personally have little tolerance for anyone that can't get their facts straight (ironic coming from me because I've made my share of mistakes here!), that doesn't mean that I automatically consider them to be a xxxx. I just consider him or her to be over-enthusiastic, ill-informed, careless person.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Sorry, I must have clicked on the wrong button before or after I edited one word! Please believe me, it was an "honest mistake!" Didn't mean to preempt you, Mark! LOL

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted by other mods, this move came as a surprise to us as well as all of you. I have privately expressed my belief to John and the moderating team that I think this was an overreaction, and I believe an argument can be made that several posters have violated the rules more often, and more egregiously, than Jim and Tom. Still, in the final analysis, this is John's forum and he has the right to run it the way he wants to.

You've probably all read my past lectures on this forum about name calling and general nastiness, and my pleas for everyone to try and debate things in a civil manner. Since the tenor of the discussions never changed, we can assume that no one even considered what I was saying. Many of you complained about the mods not acting, or not doing so in a consistent manner. I agree completely about the consistency issue; all the mods have their own biases, and we're all subject to human error. However some of us may disagree with Jim and Tom being singled out, John has acted boldly (when he's been accused of being too inactive in the past), and hopefully his strict measure will act as a deterrent to others.

I valued the contributions of Jim and Tom, and hope that they can reinstated at some point in the near future. Until then, I trust that the debates will continue with less personal contention, and that we show John our support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I have read thousands of pages on this forum. Concerning Jim & Tom, I feel the positives far outweigh the negatives in this situation. If you decide to reconsider your position, I'm sure many members, like myself, will support your decision. There's too much at stake. More open minds then ever are going to find this forum over the next 6 months. I'm all for limiting the disrespect, but this is the "Education Forum!" C'mon John.... give them a timeout and let them back in the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone claimed that John values decorum over truth, or something like that. Nonsense. He is not out of bounds at all when he asks that people disagree without resorting to nastiness. What's wrong with that?

I read over the recent exchange with Lifton and DiEugenio and Scully. I don't think this is about whether John is protecting a published writer from criticism on this board. Its about protecting any of us from personal attacks. Lifton's behavior in this wasn't spotless either, but he was responding in kind, and lost his cool a bit. But I don't see where he started the unpleasantness. I would have felt like he did in his place. And btw I think Lifton is a little blind to the extent which the CIA exercises control over the media. But that isn't the point. It is certainly a matter of style not substance.

Were DiEugenio and Scully to accept their fault and write to John expressing regret that they had become nasty about all this that would be enough to reinstate them in my mind. But just pointing out that others have similarly resorted to personal attacks but were not so punished is not enough. John just picked the two whomwere most egregious and made an example of them. I'd like to see those two remain here, but until there is some expression of understanding from them I support John's decision.

Someone else asked several pages ago - sorry I have lost track of who - if I think John should post his displeasure publicly or privately. I would answer privately, but if that didn't work then a public confrontation would be a good idea in my opinion.

Sorry for the rambling. This whole subject is somewhat upsetting because of some personal family history with the disruptive tactics of government agents. When discussions amongst us devolve into one on one attacks it causes me to distrust the motives of both parties, almost as if their argument becomes a show designed to discourage inclusive debate. This has happened previously with several posters, and when it does it causes me to tune out, which I then suspect to be exactly the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hope is that this sends a message, and that in time Jim and Tom are allowed to return to the forum, and do so...

.

Pat, what message is being sent in the process which selected Tom and Jim's membership for deletion?

The message is that it's John's Forum, and that he is only willing to put up with so much. So DON'T PUSH THE ENVELOPE.

Several years back, John got into a fray with Tim Gratz. I supported Tim on the specific point in question (John had misquoted Tim about something), but supported John for ousting Tim anyhow. So why support John?

Because this is JOHN'S forum, which is akin to his LIVING ROOM. That's how I see it. We are guests in John's living room, having a discussion. If we ask him for entry into his home, in order to talk to his other guests, and get out of hand, and abuse one of HIS other guests, well, then, we shouldn't be surprised when we're shown the door...ESPECIALLY if the guest was a friend of John's, invited by John into his home to discuss his work.

It's that simple to me. We're his guests. And should act like it.

On a point of information, Tim Gratz threatened me with legal action for pointing out his role in Watergate. Gratz, a disbarred lawyer, knew enough about the legal system to make life difficult for me when I visited the States.

Yes Pat, you are right, I do consider this forum as like my home and have been unhappy for sometime about the way people behave in it. I am hoping that this decision will make people think twice before abusing other members. If it does not, then I will close it down and you can all get out of my house and find your own venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I think Education Forum, if you combine the very valuable Spartacus encyclopedia with the posts at the JFK discussion forum is the #1 place on the internet to learn about the JFK assassination.

And John Simkin is one of the great JFK researchers of all time.

I have learned tremendous amounts of information here. In the case of JFK research it is "normal" and has been "normal" for decades for there to be vicious personal attacks. That does not mean John Simkin should allow or tolerate these vicious personal attacks on his EDUCATIONAL forum, which is his living room.

At almost every JFK discussion board I have been a member of, I have been viciously & personally attacked just for having a political or research opinion: such as Lyndon Johnson was a key player in the JFK assassination (if you don't know that, I feel sorry for you) or that John Kennedy was a compromised and unhinged sex freak of the highest order (ditto). I could not believe that I was coming under personal attack (and oppression) here at Education Forum for stating that Bill Clinton is a rapist and serial sexual predator (documented to the hilt, and not just with Juanita Broaddrick).

If you disagree with me fine - attack my sources or theories or analysis - but don't launch nasty, unhinged personal attacks on me or anyone else at Education Forum.

Tom Scully reminds me a lot of Charles Drago - a pair of little Napolean complex men, nasty personal attack artists who loved to abuse their positions as moderators. Their presence as moderators discredited both Deep Politics Forum and Education Forum - and it is obvious the owners of both boards have figured that out.

It is like having in baseball the first base umpire with a crowbar whacking an runner in the kneecap he does not like, then acting all innocent and saying, hey, I'm the umpire I can do this. What is that saying about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

And notice how little one learns from both Scully and Drago. Scully, aside from needing to have a complete personality makeover, Scully somehow needs to learn how to tell us what nugget he has found in his data dump genealogical research (Bruce Campbell Adamson is someone who plays the connection game in a much, much more valuable way). Bruce Campbell Adamson is yet another one of the greats of JFK research, having made immense contributions both on the LBJ and GHW Bush angles to it.

As for Charles Drago, stupid is in session whenever he is at the keyboard. Does Drago ever contribute anything "new?" If you will notice I am often pulling a passage from a book that is useful - a nugget here, a nugget there. For example, letting folks know that Lyndon Johnson was supporting *Republican* Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring 1968 and before that was seriously considering Rockefeller for vice president in 1968. A critically important nugget of deep politics, something almost no one knows (I read it in Dallek). That tells me Nelson Rockefeller was either involved in the JFK assassination or that he knew all about it and approved of it. LBJ had to have someone in power succeeding him to continue the cover up.

John Simkin is another person who often drops valuable nuggets of JFK research into the Forum from the many and varied books that he reads. Simkin will often say here is what I just read in a book from 30 years ago (such as Richard Nixon told his fundraisers never to take any money from H.L. Hunt under any circumstances - that actually is extremely important). It will often be a tiny but valuable nugget that directly relates to JFK research.

You get none of that from Drago (now departed from DPF) except a series of posts of autistic masturbation and nasty personal attacks delivered from the post of moderator (which of course discredits an entire forum when this type of behavior is allowed to continue).

If John Simkin ever wants to shut down Educational Forum, that is fine with me. Just let the years of discussion board posts stand so folks can learn from them. And, of course, Spartacus encyclopedia is a great educational tool in its own right.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Farley, Jim DiEugenio, Tom Scully, Martin Hay…..people who either no longer participate in this forum or have been shown the door.

Not every member of this forum shared in their beliefs. Some of those members now appear to be engaging in a form of petty, unseemly celebration over their fate - akin to dancing over their graves.

Even their adversaries, if being candid, would have to admit that they are all excellent researchers. I continue to maintain hope that, when emotions subside, John will reconsider his decision(s). If not, I believe that their absence represents a great loss for this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the relevance of this might not at first be evident, bear with me:

There is a mostly forgotten marketing tool once used widely in the US known as "trading stamps". These resembled postage stamps in both size and application:

moisten the back before applying to a paper surface. Those of us who are old enough to remember them might recall how we or our parents diligently frequented

only the stores that honored these "trading stamps" because of the extra "bang-for-the-buck" they afforded. Several companies produced them. The most popular

were the "S&H Green Stamps" and later the "Blue Chip Stamps". Essentially they were rewards for shopping at a participating retailer. For every purchase made in

such an outlet you earned a certain number of these "trading stamps" which you collected by sticking them into the pages of "S&H Green Stamp or Blue Chip Stamp

Books" specifically designed to hold the stamps. Once the book was full you began a new book. There was an accompanying catalog that let you know how many

stamp books you needed to accumulate to earn a "free" piece of merchandise. It was similar to accumulating airline mileage points, but less confusing. Once you had

accumulated enough stamp books you would visit the S&H Green or Blue Chip store where you would trade your stamps for the merchandise you had earned.

In any event, as a child I would see the little old lady who lived across the street, her niece, maybe the school's principle, or even my own mom accumulate the

books of stamps and visit the merchandise outlet for their redemption.

Upon selecting the coveted piece of "free" merchandise and "paying" for it with these "trading stamps" not ONCE did I ever witness anyone expressing guilt for having

obtained this merchandise without paying for it with money. Never did they say: "I feel awfully guilty for just walking out of here with this lamp without paying for it!" Not

even once...quite the contrary. The attitude was: "This is my lamp, I earned it! Just look at how long I have been saving up for it with all of these stamps!"

Sometimes humans trade in anger stamps, too. When we neglect to preserve boundaries that protect us (our feelings, finances, personal safety, etc.) oftentimes it just

"builds up" -- like saving Anger Trading Stamps. And the "nicer we are" to those offending us, the greater the number of "Anger Trading Stamp Books" we think we have

accumulated. When we finally have had enough, it's only after we have accumulated a rather massive amount. When we "cash them all in at once" we do so without

guilt. After all, we have this coming to us. We've earned it.

I don't know if the damage that's been done by such an approach to anger management can be reversed. Sometimes it can, but not always. Sometimes recognizing it is

the first step. In any event, the negative consequences of such an approach should be instructive for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...