JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Guest]

I think there are two separate reasons here. 1] Women like warfare [whether actual or verbal] less than men. 2] Women are less confident that most men to express their political/social/educational ideas....due to socialization which says 'men run the show on Planet Gaia'. Bull****, I say give the Planet back to the Natives and the Women...who once were in control [or equal] during the 1,4-1,500,000 years plus of peace and sanity. When men took over, everything fell apart - for a great treatise on this see The Chalice and the Blade by Rene Eisler.

Abstractions and suggested reading are all well and good. A great more I believe could be done however by actions motivated by the desire to make women members of the forum feel more welcome and less uncomfortable online.

Since the forum's inception there have been several cases reported to me of women members feeling unwelcome or uncomfortable either by the unwanted and unpleasant attention of men or by the tone of debate.

[John Dolva]

Andy: "...A great more I believe could be done however by actions motivated by the desire to make women members of the forum feel more welcome and less uncomfortable online.

Since the forum's inception there have been several cases reported to me of women members feeling unwelcome or uncomfortable either by the unwanted and unpleasant attention of men or by the tone of debate."

Andy, (I think) an important part of it must, for some time, be a pro-active Affirmative Action stance in order to establish a solid moral atmosphere.

I think Women must feel truly accepted as THEY choose to be without having to deal with anything else except as total co-members of this Education Forum. Which means that many men must likely face their selves, and own their sometimes perverted behaviour.

Part also, which I think would help, is a discussion about such things as Patriarchy, Objectification, Sexism in general, which I suppose could also include all sorts of isms like racism, ageism, genderism, and so on.

I am often heartened by the many young men and women I meet of the current young generation that do have a very strong pro equal rights mindset. These are the people who will take over from us oldies.

IMO, they must feel they enter a community where sexual abuse is not an issue: Without having to struggle with such immoral things, on top of whatever subject is at hand.

Being driven to silence in general about such things as rape, virtual rape, dissed just because peoples Sex, Race, Sexual Orientation, Creed, Religion, Difference, and all the other things that human beings stay divided by, is hard enough.

This forum could be an oasis of sorts, and, in a way, a vanguard in this particular aspect of human societal evolution. Potentially, a very Educational issue to pursue.

______

edit:formatting

Edited June 26, 2009 by John Dolva

[William Kelly]

While the identity of Patrick Henry is quite clear, does anyone know who "Saul Hunt" is?

Or who defaced this petition?

Thanks,

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/sig...?jfkgjury&1

Saul Hunt Tim Gratz hijacks John Simkin's UK Educational Forum

20176

229. Jethro Jack White THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY.NO GRASSEY KNOLL SHOOTER.NO CONSPIRACY,PERIOD. OSWALD DID IT AND HE DID IT ALONE! FT WORTH ,TX 76148

209. Ashole Gray 54231

208. DAWN MOUTH MEREDITH 72354

207. Terry Tits Mauro

1. Lee Harvey Oswald

205. Jack Rubenstein 72435

204. Marilyn Monroe Find out what happened to the "Prez"

[Don Jeffries]

I think women tend to be underrepresented on virtually all internet forums, except perhaps some of the "true crime" ones (cases like Jonbenet Ramsey, Natalee Holloway, etc.). I agree that most women probably are turned off by the nasty tenor discussions take on all too often on political forums like this.

However, I don't know how you could have more female moderators without more female posters. Is there a higher percentage of female lurkers than posters on this forum? If so, perhaps a few might be willing to become mods. That would actually be ideal, because they'd preumably be more unbiased than those of us whose views are well known to other posters.

[William Kelly]

A few weeks ago Evan Burton placed Evan Marshall on Moderation because he didn't have a photo avitar and we haven't heard from him since.

I've previously asked for an exemption for him to have a photo because being a Detroit cop he is subject to the "Cape Fear" syndrome, in which someone who has been convicted of a crime and goes to jail blames the lawyer, judge, witnesses and cops for putting them away and seeks revenge when they get out.

As a policeman, his perspective on the assassination and other crimes is important to understand what happened, and his last post was in regards to the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippitt.

The purpose of the photo and the use of real names is to prevent people from hiding behind false ids and avoid the consequences of their posts and behavior. This is not the case with him.

So I ask John Simkin will he please grant Evan Marshall an exception to this rule, and permit to post again without moderation?

Thank you,

Bill Kelly

It's been a month now and I've received no response from this request.

The Cop killer - Was Tippit Part of the Conspiracy Thread is now back again to this topic and I want to know if Evan Marshall is still on moderation and whether he will return to post again?

Has John Simkin seen this request?

I'd like a moderator - John Simkin or Andy Walker or someone other than Evan Burton to respond.

Why is Marshall on moderation? So he won't ever post again?

Bill Kelly

[Evan Burton]

There has been some discussion regarding Rule (iv) of the forum rules of behaviour. It has been suggested that the motivations of a poster should be able to be questioned. Part of Rule (iv) currently forbids this.

What is your opinion? Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?

Please note this is NOT an "official" rule change vote; it is simply a vehicle to allow the board owners to know the opinions of forum members.

The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the Political Conspiracy section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.

Thank you!

[Evan Burton]

My own opinion is that the rule should remain. To me, it doesn't matter what the motivations of a poster are. If I disagree with what they say, I'll say why I disagree. If I believe they are posting inaccurate or misleading data, then I'll demonstrate why the posts are inaccurate or misleading. Who posts the statements is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion. To me, calling some as a "disinfo agent" or "agent provocateur" simply means you are unable to counter to other person's argument.

[John Dolva]

Evan, in my opinion you are raising an important issue. However, I'm unclear of exactly what you are asking. It may be just semantics, but I wonder if you could clarify a couple of points for me, please?

"Questioning Motivations"' seems to (me to) have some connotations that appear (to me) different from a statement like ''Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?

If this is so, and the real question is ''Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?'' then I think that already happens in many ways (and personally, I have no problems with questions along that line ( in fact, i'd welcome them with glee ). Perhaps you are more meaning to say ''cast aspersions'' or something along that line. Mis-represantations, defamation etc. ??? If that is so, then, certainly, I agree with you.

[Evan Burton]

Correct John.

If someone were to say to me "You support this because you are right-wing and pro-military; you are biased on this topic!" then I would have no problems, even if I were not right-wing, etc.

When people accuse me of being a paid disinformation agent, acting on orders of my superiors, etc, then I strongly object.

[Evan Burton]

What is a poster's perceived motives are only to thwart - rather than to forward a discussion; what if the perceived motives are to endlessly counter a certain poster or subject with an immediate and often unsubstantive debunk, naysay, element of doubt for doubt sake;

Then it should be easy to prove what the person has said is wrong. If it is simple doubt, then counter the doubt with evidence.

... what if a poster's perceived motives are to constantly attempt character assassination on a website, writer, witnesses, etc. that others post

Then it will be apparent, and readers can decide for themselves if what they say has any weight. Once again, counter their arguments with facts; demonstrate that they cannot muster any real evidence and are force to resort to 'character assassination'.

- and this forms a clear pattern of behavior that is obstructive and not condusive to furthering a discussion and the attempt to get to the truth of a matter - but the opposite - to thwart anyone making progress toward getting to the truth of a matter?

What about in the exact opposite case, where someone makes claims and then refuses to discuss the counter-claims, making it impossible to get to the truth of the matter? Someone who has a clear pattern of behaviour like this? A 'hit & run' poster, for instance?

......It is one thing to hold another position that a poster; it is quite another to act as an obstacle to that person's making their points;

If their points are flawed or wrong, why is it undesirable to point it out? To question it? If someone is acting - unfairly - as an obstacle, then that person should have the offending post reported and let the moderators decide if any action is required.

...presenting their evidence; working with others toward an approximation of the truth of the matter, etc. In such cases, only a questioning and discussion of the 'motives' for acting this way can clear this up and prevent this obstructive behavior, IMO.

I disagree. If people are violating Forum rules, then they should be reported. If they are not violating rules, then it is up to the reader to decide whose arguments carry the most weight, to determine the veracity of various statements. WHO makes the statements is almost irrelevant.

I'll attack what the poster says, if I disagree with them. Attacking the person is a sign of inability to counter an argument, and that's what questioning a poster's motives is... especially when no proof as to the motives can be produced. It is, in some cases, simply slandering the poster. Would it be acceptable for me to question your motives, why you hold your views? Would it be acceptable for me to suggest you were being paid to advance certain ideas or views? Would it be right for me to proffer the idea that you stand up for the ideas you do because you are acting under instructions to do so?

NO. It is not.

...It is my observation that a few on this Forum do not want certain topics discussed...

Then negate that by raising those topics and MAKING them discuss that topic! They'll hate it.

... and act in such a manner as to attempt to negate others posting of information they don't want seen - mostly with negativity, quantity, as homs, constantly ending all 'offending' posts with a debunk - no matter how unsubstantive, etc.

Information may be right , wrong, or sufficiently indeterminate that it is up to the reader - not me, not you - to decide if it is of value. If there are ad homs, report the post. If the information is unsubstantial, then demonstrate that by pointing out the flaws in the information, showing where it is wrong.

It has already driven several off the Forum and more to go inactive, IMO. It is the antithesis of the kind of collegial discussion that should be seen here - even if persons hold very divergent opinions on a subject.

Those people, IMO, hold similar views and far from wanting a wide discussion on topics, wish to stifle any contrasting posts on topics; the last thing they want is divergent opinions. Notice how homogenous all the posts are on one forum which several members have chosen to go to? I think you'd find it difficult to show any differing opinion on that particular forum.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Evan Burton
Spelling correction

[Evan Burton]

To start with the notion that all here are honest brokers and their own agents is IMO misguided.

I have never said that they need to be 'honest'. What they say is the important thing.

To ignore that some are for a variety of reasons and motives simply on Forums to disrupt, debunking in and of itself (without thinking through the evidence themselves, but simply parroting the official lines), trying to disrupt the orderly flow and conversation of others is NAIVE to the extreme.

Then they are to be reported and let we moderators sort it out.

Need I cite operations such as Mockingbird, Cointelpro and others?! Need I remind the Forum of the recent attack on the Forum and JS by Bohling?

And how was that attack negated? By showing how what the person said was wrong.

I say the same and similar might [or does] go on on the Forum and we need to be able to identify and expose it - without our hands tied. 

What if they are incorrectly "identified"? What if someone simply has a different opinion... but gets tagged as an agent? It has the potential to devolve into something akin to systems we want to rid ourselves of, not encourage.

The case of Tim Gratz is instructive and for some too long ago to be well known - or known at all. He was notorious for posting at the end of any thread he disagreed with with a post - no matter how frivolous or off point - as long as he stopped the thread; made it into a circus; acted as a provocator or tried to debunk/naysay/negate (usually without substance). Similar things go on on the Forum today. Gratz was expelled.

Then the system works, does it not? Complaints were made, action was taken... after due consideration.

Engaging some provacteurs is only playing into their game - to endlessly talk about [really divert] a subject - never getting to the particulars; never acknowledging points or postions of others; only negating and debunking - making the thread look like a circus. On many forums I know such repeat offenders are asked to leave. 

As long as Forum rules are observed, then free speech should NOT be stifled.

[Evan Burton]

BTW, this shouldn't just be between Peter and myself; I think most posters know our respective positions.

What are other peoples opinions?

What about the lurkers? Please comment.

Thanks!

[Denis Pointing]

Peter Lemkin, I say this without any malice whatsoever, you my friend, perhaps without realising it, are the worst offender for calling fellow members "dis- info agents" and "provocateurs". Since being a member here, some years now, I've seen you accuse at least six members of being one of the above. In the past, when I first came here, you even sent me P.M.'s warning me not to trust certain members. You may think me naive but personally I dont believe any of the members here are dis- info agents or deliberate provocateurs, just people who have differant opinions and wish to express them, but rest assured if any of these 'dark forces' ever do manifest here your fellow members, who are actually quite intelligent, will soon recognise them for what they are and act accordingly. What we dont need are constant warnings and accusations. On a forum used by adults rule iv shouldn't be necessary, unfortunately it very much is. Rule iv must stay. BTW, before reading your above post I didn't realise Tom Gratz had been expelled, I always imagined he'd just left because of the hostility he received here. Hmm, quite worrying that, I'll obviously have to be a lot more careful not to upset the wrong people around here.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Pamela Brown]

If this forum has been under attack by outside forces wishing to cause such division that it ends up having to shut down, how should this be addressed? If it is known to have been under attack at one time, what is to say it is not under attack at all times?

If there are posters here, for example, who have a tendency to try to divide and conquer and/or have compiled a track record elsewhere of working to cause division and/or working with the agendas of others, can that be defined or even suggested while staying within the rules? Or, would it cause more harm to try to address these issues than to simply try to keep a spirit of comeraderie and focus on the evidence?

[John Dolva]

If this forum has been under attack by outside forces wishing to cause such division that it ends up having to shut down, how should this be addressed? If it is known to have been under attack at one time, what is to say it is not under attack at all times?

If there are posters here, for example, who have a tendency to try to divide and conquer and/or have compiled a track record elsewhere of working to cause division and/or working with the agendas of others, can that be defined or even suggested while staying within the rules? Or, would it cause more harm to try to address these issues than to simply try to keep a spirit of comeraderie and focus on the evidence?

Pamela, IMO a very pertinent post.

(What doesn't shut the forum down makes it stronger. No doubt it is under attack in various ways much of the time. In a sense the attacks are a guage of the Forums importance. What I personally find regretful is that the vast areas of educational opportunities, apart from the JFK and PC sections ''fights'' dominate so much that quite likely serious educators in other fields are reticent to participate. This is really an Education Forum, (IMO) for Students (I'm one) as well as Teachers. It's also not a place for the faint hearted many times and this can no doubt be be alleviated in various ways.)

Further (again IMO) , Truth needs no defense. If a knowing of a pattern of disruption is revealed then that is helpful.

In a sense, as well, a spirit of comraderie (in relation to truth) and particularly a focus on evidence in itself by those devoted to it creates an atmosphere wherein such disruption finds no hold and then is resolved over time naturally (and the process probably is an education for all concerned as well.)