Denis Morissette Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) So he was banned by the old administration. Then I understand that the poster who credited Fetzer in the Bush thread should be put the new "2 posts a day" rule if someone repeats this banned member's name. Edited August 5, 2018 by Denis Morissette Precision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 Can we get the complete list of banned members? It is the only way to know if you're culpable. Please list along side all views and topics these banned member are associated with. Then we can be certain no chicanery slips these hallowed halls, or internet server. Cheers, Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted August 5, 2018 Author Share Posted August 5, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) On 8/5/2018 at 5:47 AM, James R Gordon said: 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. It's been 6 months since you posted this. Are you still looking into this? Now that it is clear that F***er got banned, are you going to put on a 2-day notice the poster who mentioned his name in the Bush thread? That is as long as the rule forbids to mention the name of a banned member. I added the stars in the banned member's name since the rule would automatically apply to me. Thank you for your consideration. Edited February 24, 2019 by Denis Morissette Spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 Denis, Sorry I had forgotten about this. Although it may cause some difficulty, I am not in favour of making such a list avaliable. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) OK. I understand for the list. I would not want to spend a week-end on this either. Just for clarification in case I misunderstood the rules, can we mention the name of a banned member. Let's say that one of the recent banned member whose name is the same as the banana company, had found a new photo related to the case, can I credit him for that, or should I just post "Someone found this image yesterday". Or will this will go against the commonly and decent rule to credit someone for his finding, no matter how you dislike this person? Thanks. Edited February 24, 2019 by Denis Morissette Precision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kozlowski Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 On 8/2/2018 at 11:07 AM, James R Gordon said: 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. I'm new here and dont really know who any of the banned members are besides Doyle. There are a couple other JFK forums that I read besides this one. If I bring up a subject I see somewhere else that I agree with and it's from a member I did not know was banned will I be penalized? Or do I have to specifically mention that persons name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 So if one mentions the name there is a penalty? Being newer a list might be helpful. Unless I misunderstand how the rule works. Thank you for this forum. I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) James, Thank you for clarifying this rule and the need for it. We should only be posting our own research anyhow. I would, at the same time, appreciate a clarification if Fetzer was banned or not, as I have used his name in Judyth posts I am sure. Also, though Judyth does not post here, I don't think she was banned. Please correct me if I am wrong. Edited February 25, 2019 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Gordon, is it true we are supposed to post only our research? If so we’ll be only a few left here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted February 25, 2019 Author Share Posted February 25, 2019 I really am unhappy posting a list of members who are banned. However I do see the issue that it creates for members. I have done a check on membership hoping that in the list I would see a field that indicated who was a banned member. From what I see that criteria is not available. It would appear `i would need to manually go through the entire 7445 listed members. I believe most of them are no longer active. I am sorry I am not plowing through that list manually. I cannot remember why this rule came into being. However let me clarify it. The mere mentioning of the name of a member who is banned is not an offence. I believe the members of the admin team team would be unhappy if a member was posting in collaboration with a banned member. Without searching the entire database I believe Professor Fetzer is banned as is Brian Doyle. As I recolllect it both these names have been referred to in the recent past, but - as I understand it - they have been mentioned in reference and not in collaboration. As of todays elaboration of this rule, to mention in a post a banned member is not an offence. Regarding original research, This may well have been stated at some point but I have lomg forgotten why. Again lets clarify. I believe today the members of the admin team would be concerned with Palgerism and if detected we might well contact the offending member but I believe it would only entail a gentle reminder. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, James R Gordon said: I I cannot remember why this rule came into being. However let me clarify it. The mere mentioning of the name of a member who is banned is not an offence. I believe the members of the admin team team would be unhappy if a member was posting in collaboration with a banned member. James I do recall how this came about. The title of the thread gets the to the heart of the problem and the admins should not be expected to parse-out the minute letter and spirit of this problem. Common sense should suffice. Jim Hargrove, reacting to some understandable consternation, was posting multiple posts, almost verbatim, a near continuous dialogue from a banned member. Those posts contained language and insinuations that were clearly against this forums expectations of decorum, but because they were quotes from elsewhere, they were seeping-in. I like Jim very much, but he was uncharacteristically on-tilt at that time and I recall being aggravated that just this sort of problem, and heavy handed ruling would come about, along with all of its attendant complications. I even warned him about what he was doing and what might come of it; but he dismissed my warning. As noted earlier in this thread, Tom Scully and I teamed up on some important (IMO) digging, which included some limited cross-posting and it was fruitful, did no harm, breached no rules or etiquette and all was well. It even, I had hoped, went some distance towards mending some gates, as opposed to fences, and that we might some day, before wa are all dead, find some room for reconciliatiation in some cases. Unfortunately, Jim’s cross postings were just an aggravating instance of what could be, and the hammer came down. It’s all very unfortunate, and I would not blame James or other admins from dealing with these things on a case by case basis rather than standing by a rule that creates situations and questions which are far more cumbersome than was the intent of the rule. It would seem to be common sense that if you are acting as a proxy for a particular member who still exhibits manners, or language, which got that person banned in the first place, then your not doing the right thing. It’s pretty simple, and there are no stupid people here. Edited February 25, 2019 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 So if I get this right, I can post arguments that originally came from a banned member as long as I’m not posting them on his behalf. And I can also say that this argument originally came from him. Good to know. Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 My view is that posting the list of banned members, especially if it included cases several years old, would not be correct due to data protection issues. Being mentioned in such a list has some adverse connotations which potentially can affect banned members in their undertakings unrelated to the JFK case. That said, members of this forum should be able to ask the administrators whether a particular member was banned or not. As far as quoting a banned researcher's piece of work, this observes the standard arrangements for protecting intellectual property, and therefore, a banned member's work needs to be quoted properly by mentioning the source, date of retrieval and the name of the author. I have quoted Mr. Doyle's interview with Sarah Stanton's family members and the photograph he was sent by copying the link, saying when I retrieved it and stating the name of the person who posted. However, this should be automatic for any piece of work we quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph McBride Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) I don't agree with the idea of banning anybody from posting. Particularly on a forum such as this one, we should take great care to support the First Amendment. There are legal limitations to free speech (such as libel), but unpopular opinions or ones most people consider wrong-headed or offensive (such as some of James Fetzer's) should not be considered cause for banning. Sometimes we can learn from opinions we do not agree with; sometimes people can be wrong-headed much of the time but still have some valuable views at other times (as Fetzer, for example, has). Personal insults and ad hominem attacks should be discouraged, in my view, but otherwise unpopular views should be welcomed. "New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths." -- George Bernard Shaw Much madness is divinest Sense- To a discerning Eye- Much Sense- the starkest Madness- 'Tis the Majority- In this, as All, prevail- Assent-and you are sane- Demur-you're straightway dangerous--- And handled with a Chain- -Emily Dickinson (poem 435), c. 1862 Edited February 25, 2019 by Joseph McBride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts