Paul Brancato Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 it disappeared sometime today. Mr. Jefferies doesn't accept personal messages here. I think he had something interesting to say. Perhaps the moderators, and Don is apparently one of them, could clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 That would be nice. At least they could clarify what he was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Yes, what happened to my thread? There is no point in emailing the moderator group- they never reply back. For the record, I am not advocating that Thomas Graves or anyone else be moderated or whatever. I am merely pointing out the glaring inconsistencies of the moderation here, as I have done repeatedly to my fellow moderators. Instead of just deleting threads, why not provide a reasonable explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 I was able to read the hidden thread. To clarify, I wasn't even sure I was still a moderator. I haven't been posting much over the past few years, and frankly I'm not sure why I'm doing so now. I wasn't advocating that anything be done to Thomas Graves or any other poster, just as I never voted to ban Jim Fetzer, Greg Parker, or anyone else over the years. I merely ask for consistency. And yes, I waited for an answer to my email, but since I haven't received any replies to my emails to the moderation team for quite a while, I decided to post. If the moderation is to be basically hands-off, which I personally favor, then it's unwise to moderate (and especially ban) any poster for anything other than vulgar or personal attacks. I have never seen much of that on this forum over the years. I think that makes for a more interesting, lively place. Certainly if all the banned posters were back, the threads would be longer and the debates more intriguing. On the other hand, if you're going to police the place, then police everyone equally. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else personally believes about this case, but it's undeniable that most of those who have been banned here, or subject to repeated moderation, were "extreme" types who believe a huge, powerful conspiracy was behind the death of JFK. I haven't seen any neocons banned. This kind of moderation leads to perhaps a more civil, but more boring forum. It's your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 14, 2018 Author Share Posted March 14, 2018 Don - I nearly signed out after your disappearing post. I agree with you about censorship. Either it is consistent or not at all except in egregious abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 I agree also. And that is a good point about moderation being applied equally in spite of what anyone believes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: I agree also. And that is a good point about moderation being applied equally in spite of what anyone believes. James, With all due respect, I totally agree with you for a change. Hard core "the CIA did it" conspiracy theorists, no matter how "well-established and respected and 'published'" they might be, shouldn't be favored over "Oswald did it, with-or-without-some-help," "KGB did it," or "Castro did it" proponents in this regard. Heck, even Paul Trejo should get a fair shake from time to time. Thanks! -- Tommy Edited March 15, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now