Isn't this the reality? Isn't this the solution?

[Guest]

Regarding Kathy’s recent warning about civility and some of the follow-up, isn't it the reality that:

1.  The vast majority of participants here adhere to one conspiracy theory or another and would greatly prefer for this to be a conspiracy-only site.

2.  To express a non-conspiracy view is the equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull.  Those who hold non-conspiracy views are as unwelcome as atheists at an evangelical church picnic.

3.  The vast majority of rage, insults, ridicule and other varieties of uncivility is to be found in exchanges between those who hold conspiracy views and those who don’t.

4.  For the vast majority of participants here, the JFK assassination in general and their pet conspiracy theories in particular are extremely emotional matters, not unlike religious beliefs.

Would anyone dispute the above?  It isn’t 100% accurate, of course, but it’s surely 95% accurate.

I really don’t see this changing, ever.  I believe the forum should adopt some equivalent of a religious forum’s statement of faith, making clear that non-conspiracy views are simply not welcome.  If you aren’t at least a member of the conspiracy brotherhood, don’t apply.

The perspective that I’ve tried to bring – i.e., at least some focus on the epistemology of conspiracy beliefs, the psychological underpinnings of conspiracy beliefs, the dynamics of conspiracy communities and forums, and the need to apply common sense and logic to conspiracy claims – is clearly unwelcome here.  It’s a step removed (in the wrong direction) from simply expressing non-conspiracy beliefs; it’s blasphemy.

When I've pointed clear factual errors and sloppy research in relation to a number of conspiracy claims, I've been met with a veritable firestorm.  That will never change - see points 1-4 above.

I suggested to the administrators a strict rule such as the following:

Posts and responses shall focus on substance, not personalities.  Other members shall be addressed as “you” (or by name) and referred to as “he,” “she,” “him” or “her” (or by name).  There shall be no disparagement, ridicule or mockery of another member’s name; appearance; education; professional qualifications, career or skills; intellectual abilities; or views.  Substantive discussions shall be respectful and free of sarcasm, ridicule, mockery or insults.  Disagreements on matters of substance shall not become personal or disagreeable.  Broad characterizations, such as Lone Nutters and Conspiracy Theorists, shall not be used unless they are genuinely relevant to the substantive discussion.  Essentially the same rules shall apply to discussions of particular authors, books and theories – they shall focus on substance and be free of disparagement, ridicule, mockery or insults.  These rules will be strictly enforced, and a member will receive no more than two warnings before being suspended or banned.

But really, what would be the point?  It would be “honored” only in the breach, and in a month the culture would be the same old, same old.  If you look at the thread on which Kathy issued her warning, you will see it was immediately ignored.

I thus believe the only solution is a rule such as the above and a limitation on membership to pledged members of the conspiracy brotherhood.

With that, I bid you a not-very-fond adieu.  I asked James Gordon a few years ago to delete my account, but he graciously put it into limbo instead.  This time, I will ask that it be permanently deleted.

Enjoy (?) yourselves.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Guest

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

This time, I will ask that it be permanently deleted.

Lance,

I would ask that you not do that. As I'm sure you know, this is not a level playing field. And given that 95 percent or higher of the forum members and the owners/moderators believe in a conspiracy, maybe it is unreasonable to expect that it can be. When I get sick of things, I stop posting for a while. But I would like to see you stay-just be prepared for some heartburn as it comes with the territory.

[Michael Clark]

Well, Lance, you are, along with Tracy Parnell and DVP, the most appreciated LNers I have seen on the forum. Of course, I don’t appreciate the ridicule that all, except perhaps Tracy, being with them. 

DVP was let go for good reason, IMO. But it was ultimately his choice.

You got into an ego battle with Jim and you want James to shut the door for you, because you can’t manage to walk away on your own. 

I think Jim gets out-of-hand, sometimes, but it is only to those most worthy, so you can take it as a compliment. I do wish that Jim could control himself however. Please stick around. I think you know the truth but cannot now express or face it. I think there is hope for you. I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. Like LNers CTers think that LNers lack courage or harbor a great fear of the truth. 

 

[David Andrews]

I can get non-conspiracy blather on any street corner.  Why would I come here for it?

I wish they still had store windows full of TVs playing day and night.  I could stand there drooling like a feeb over the non-conspiracy news.

Edited October 11, 2019 by David Andrews

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

I can get non-conspiracy blather on any street corner.  Why would I come here for it?

I wish they still had store windows full of TVs playing day and night.  I could stand there drooling like a feeb over the non-conspiracy news.

Agreed, but we can’t be regarded as preaching to the choir if we welcome those who are not in agreement with us.

[Guest]

Thanks, folks, but I'm not looking for pats on the back or reasons to stay.  I'm not just done with this forum but with the JFK assassination as well.  I'm happy to say I no longer have a shred of JFK material on my Kindle or in my home.  I have enough other interests to occupy my time.  I wish you all the best.

Yes, Michael, I've found on a number of past occasions with other forums that having my account permanently deleted is the easiest solution.  Forums on controversial topics such as this are somewhat like eating peanuts - very difficult to stop even when you're long past the point that you're enjoying them.  I've completely moved away from religion and UFO forums for the same reason.  They eventually become unhealthy obsessions unless you cut them off.  I think 663 posts here is about twice what I've ever accumulated on another forum

I take it David is casting one vote for a conspiracy-only forum.  I do think that is the only solution.  No more non-conspiracy blather!

Last post.  Adios.

[Michael Clark]

33 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Thanks, folks, but I'm not looking for pats on the back or reasons to stay.  I'm not just done with this forum but with the JFK assassination as well.  I'm happy to say I no longer have a shred of JFK material on my Kindle or in my home.  I have enough other interests to occupy my time.  I wish you all the best.

Yes, Michael, I've found on a number of past occasions with other forums that having my account permanently deleted is the easiest solution.  Forums on controversial topics such as this are somewhat like eating peanuts - very difficult to stop even when you're long past the point that you're enjoying them.  I've completely moved away from religion and UFO forums for the same reason.  They eventually become unhealthy obsessions unless you cut them off.  I think 663 posts here is about twice what I've ever accumulated on another forum

I take it David is casting one vote for a conspiracy-only forum.  I do think that is the only solution.  No more non-conspiracy blather!

Last post.  Adios.

Well, their is the academic study of religion; really a study of art and literary criticism. I know I invited you before but you passed on the offer, but the synoptic problem, the Gospel of Thomas, the Q document and the Oxyrhynchus papyri are fascinating lines of inquiry. You can find my lonely post in the Religion section.

But, before you go...

Care for a potato chip, or two?

[Cliff Varnell]

39 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Last post.  Adios.

For all of us who have "Payette says goodbye" in the Ed Forum Drinking Game...

Bottoms up, again!

[Cory Santos]

Cliff, i have Lance pie bingo going to see when he comes back. I hope does as I find his posts usually amusing. Lol.

Truth is both sides need fact checkers.  Lance does sometimes provide this service. The  DVP situation was different  with the copying work to his site.  The francois situation was also different.  I wish lance  would have answered me why he was not at the storm area 51 event.  I thought  it would interest him.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Cory Santos

[Robert Card]

Lance, half of a typical comment from you is ad hominem.   'Conspiracy Game', and everything else is ad hom.  The reason for this is it covers you from having to answer the question.   You were challenged by Greg Parker from ROK recently, and you completely avoided the points of his comments, and instead used it for more disparaging comments directed towards CTer's.   You should have been banned a long time ago.   But again, if you want to address the comments here with dignity, I'm sure all will agree you should stay,

[Ron Bulman]

Hasta La Vista.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass.  Take Rich with you.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

I think it is important to allow all views. Opposing views can provide important feedback and provide perspective as well as expose fraudulent or poorly-reasoned conspiracy theories. Some of the ideas posited on this forum are simply absurd and hurts the pursuit of the truth.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

18 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I think it is important to allow all views. Opposing views can provide important feedback and provide perspective as well as expose fraudulent or poorly-reasoned conspiracy theories. Some of the ideas posited on this forum are simply absurd and hurts the pursuit of the truth.

Very well stated.

[James DiEugenio]

Larry:

I never asked Lance to leave.  In fact, right before he left, I told him I was done with him.

How this started was simple.  I asked him, as a lawyer, how he would explain the validity of CE 399 in court.  I specifically pointed to the work of Aguilar, Thompson and Hunt as ways that CE 399 would be impeached as fraudulent by any competent attorney, not Robert Shapiro.  He granted that, well Gary and Tink brought up some real points that would have to be explained in some way, but he added that the WC and HSCA were not really court proceedings.  He then said that sometimes legal arenas are not the best way to find the truth.

My whole point in my posting was I was trying to find the truth about the chain of custody of CE 399--and he had ignored the documentary work of Hunt.  I then added that it does not matter if CE 399 was admissible or inadmissible, WC supporters are stuck with it.  It is clear evidence that someone was trying to frame Oswald. 

Do you recall what he said to me then?  Something like, was I dripping spittle all over my keyboard as I typed those words?  (And Mike Clark says I was out of control.) . He then called me a conspiracy capitalist.  In other words I was in this to make money. 😀

I replied that all I was doing was reciting facts, testimony and evidence that was now in the record.  I then posted links to all the material.  He did not argue any of the info in those links.  Or any of the examples I cited from this information.  He then jumped to another thread and started attacking me and the information I posted there.

I have no problem with arguing the evidence with the other side.  For the simple reason that I know our side will win the overall debate on the core evidence.  What I have a problem with is  1.) Von Pein rearranging that debate in order to alter the results for his own propaganda uses on his web site and doing it 133 times. 2.) A lawyer coming on this site and trying to say that what I do is comparable to alien abductions, and UFO sightings.  And then using every cheap character smear against me when he cannot counter the simple evidence presented to him. "Conspiracy capitalist" is only one among many.  When someone does not have the facts, that is what they usually do.  There have been many, many Warren Commission advocates on this site through the years that I had no problems with e.g. Gratz, and Parnell.  Because they did not do what DVP and the Arizona lawyer did.  Its simple as that. 

The Arizona lawyer left of his own accord.  I said I was done with him and he still left.  His excuse was he could not  make any headway here. He then said that was mainly because of some psychological ailment we are afflicted by.  Absolute rubbish. And another smear. What we are afflicted by is simple: every major tenet of the WR is wrong.  And we can prove it.  Its not us who are afflicted, it is those surviving members of that Commission who still think they are correct. Not only are they wrong, but they know they are wrong.  Which is why they have to keep on conveying their official BS.

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Ken Davies]

How many times can someone walk away, then return , then walk away?

The little boy who cried wolf syndrone! Something to be studied no doubt.