Behaviour of Members

[Ashton Gray]

Good grief. Has it really come to this?

Free speech is a guaranteed human right among civilized societies, but any right is accompanied by corresponding responsibilities. Not least among these responsibilites is the one that people have to well represent themselves and their "cause;" to comport themselves in a way that doesn't depict them in an unflattering light.

A few thoughts directed toward those who have trouble policing their own behaviour:

Rather than dash off a hastily composed nasty reply to somebody who has provoked your ire, re-read your reply prior to sending it. If you would be offended to receive such a reply, then perhaps you could and should revise it prior to pressing the "add reply" button.

When in doubt, leave your reply overnight and sleep on it. If you feel differently about it in the morning, revise it prior to posting.

Try to focus on the content of another person's post, rather than the underlying behaviour you infer from it. Attacking somebody's argument is to be encouraged; it's why we're here. Attacking the person is a low-rent move and diminishes the respect that other Forum members may have for you. It's a "debate" over points of view. Simply disagreeing is allowed. Trashing one's opponent as somehow unworthy of the debate only raises the question of why you bother to respond.

Rather than paraphrase somebody's argument, deal with it directly by citing the passages that you find untenable. That way you avoid concocting your own strawman argument, simply to knock it down. And avoid being accused of same.

The "remove" and "anonymity" of posting to each other encourages people to be more direct in words than they would be were they in the same room with the recipient of their posts. Imagine yourself sitting at the same table with your intended target, over a beer or cup of tea. If you wouldn't say it to their face, leave it out of your posts.

Please let it be understood that I have sniped at others in the past and grew to regret the tone upon re-reading it later. [Tim Gratz and Gerry Hemming were the targets, and I'm sure had I better taken my own advice listed above, I could have made the intended points without causing myself to wince at my own vehemence at a later date.] I mention this to ensure that others don't think I'm lecturing them from a pinnacle of condescension, but instead understand that I've tried to modify my own past excesses by using the tips listed above.

As always, my free advice is worth precisely what one has paid to hear it.

I wish you'd stop being so insufferably right all the time.

Ashton

[Myra Bronstein]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. They are nearly always about posts on threads about the photographic evidence concerning the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

I spend a considerable amount of money on this forum. We recently upgraded to a much more expensive package. I also spend a great deal of time on this forum. This is in itself an expensive business as I am self-employed. I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

I think you mods should ban anyone who makes an obscene gesture at the screen and/or makes this sound "pfft."

(I also think good personal hygiene should be enforced.)

[Douglas Caddy]

I think you should do whatever is necessary to eliminate the kinds of wholesale scurrilous and gratuitous personal attacks reflected in my sig below. And those are just a few examples.

I loathe every second I have to spend deflecting and dealing with such reprehensible tactics, but it came to a point early on where it was clear to me that just such sleaze was condoned and allowed here, and that I was on my own to attempt to deal with that kind of counterproductive noise at least enough to let the signal get through.

Even so, I never post only a response to such garbage: I always post pertinent and relevant facts, while dealing in any way I have to with these kinds of attempted personal smear campaigns.

It became clear to me just how much it was condoned as far back as 13 July 2006, when Pat Speer was allowed to post in the Watergate forum the muckraking topic Question for Ashton Gray; Let's Meet.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Watergate, starting in the first sentence with: "Ashton, since a lot of my problems with your assertions is that I think you're a fake..." and goes downhill from there. The man actually had the unspeakable gall to say the following, like some lightning-bolted goose-stepper guarding the gates of Prinz-Albrecht-Str-8: "You can show me an ID verifying that your name is really Ashton Gray, and we can be on our way." As though he has standing to use this public forum to stalk me and to attempt to invade my privacy, and demand me to "produce my papers" for him. <SPIT!>

I wrote you urgently, John, asking you to pull the leeches off of me, and to stop the ineffable personal attacks. You wrote back that you saw nothing wrong with it—this as Douglas Caddy chimed in to ramp up the fishwife gossip-mongering with statements like: "Ashton Gray, a/k/a the Great Fake/the Great Flake, seems to be avoiding meeting you. One can only wonder why." In the Watergate forum. It's all still there in that thread.

It was then I knew that this kind of sewer-level personal attack—which wouldn't be allowed in even the yellowest tabloid rag—was considered business as usual here, and that if I was going to continue to use this forum to attempt to discuss actual facts and issues, I was going to have to deal with that kind of catty traducement and spiteful personal vilification myself, because no moderation was in effect.

So I have.

I now have what amounts to a personal entourage of Pat Speer, Charles Black, and Thomas Purvis following me around like a pack into almost every thread I start, posting direct or cowardly oblique cat-calls and personal insults at me—such as the ones I now have memorialized in my sig. For a while it included Bill Miller, but I finally had enough and took care of that. And got a public warning for it.

My supreme preference is to deal with and stick to on-topic facts at issue. Every minute spent discussing anything else is a minute wasted, and I only have so much time I can devote to the forum at all. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by mutely and be used as a whipping boy for these kinds of insupportable, indefensible, off-topic, debased personal attacks.

Because I don't just lie there and learn to enjoy getting kicked in a virtual alleyway gang-bang, I now have my own reputation for being ascerbic, sarcastic, rude, abrasive and (fill in the blank). And I can be—real good—when being jerked around, lied to, or insulted.

It's not my preference. And it doesn't happen at all with other members who honor and respect the purpose and function and topics of the forum, and are trying in good faith to get at and discuss the facts, not launching sanctimonious personal attacks.

I think anything that will focus the purposes of the forums, and will keep topics on-topic, and will move the distractions and sideshows off the line will elevate and enhance the value of the forums, and will entirely validate and vindicate all of your good work and expense in making such an invaluable resource available.

Ashton

John is on the right track in banning forum members who continually show abusive behavior.

Ashton Gray's arrival in the Watergate section, with his instanteous personal attacks on other members, had the effect of ending that particular forum as a source of new information and valuable research concerning this history-changing scandal.

If abusive behavior is the standard by which a member should be banned, Ashton Gray easy meets and exceeds this criterion.

[John Dolva]

I can't condemn others for doing what I myself do at times.

but:

There is a code of behaviour that is most conducive to progress in research that allows people with widely differing attitudes to have constructive exchanges. It's good to TRY to stick to that and failings by many at different times is only natural.

A relationship is not defined by the occasional vitriol but by the ability to move on. This is an educational process I don't think we should be deprived of.

Precedents often later become yet another reason for heated arguments. I think many who display a great ability to be vicious also are displying gentler more honorable traits.

Attacks reallly tell more about the attacker than the person being attacked. It puzzles me sometimes that some wish to tell others about this side of their selves. But still, most of us do at different times.

When a majority strives to set a progressive tone (with mistakes and occasional backslidings of course, but an ability to cease and decist when coming to senses) then those who actually are unsuitable just simply stand out. There's no need to point them out or even hand them the shovel when they're so busy already digging their hole. I think they are very few and are sooner or later dealt with.

For myself I find that if I restrain or own my negativities within myself and just deal with the actual evidentiary material with as little emotional attachment to my own opinions as possible allowing them to change if someone can show me where my areas of ignorance or wrong thinking lie then it seems possible to discuss most everything with most everyone. Strict rules deny the opportunity to grow. I have, and have seen other members, change over time. This change is usually precipitated by watching my betters deal with things and adopting to the best of my ability the same approach. The early postings by Harry Dean are a good example IMO. Sherry is another who o so graciously just does not bite. There are others, but what I'm getting at is that the contrasting examples mean a lot and a voluntary change is more beneficial than a big stick.

There are only a few types of attacks that I think should earn first a warning and then followed by either probation or banning. Unrepentent racism and sexism in particular.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum... In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

As someone who has relocated to America I can testify that Americans are naturally courteous, friendly, hard-working and good-humored people. I concur with Brendan Behan, the working-class hero who dedicated one of his books:

"To America, my New Found Land. The man who hates you hates the human race."

But some of us occasionally forget our natural courtesy when we get behind the wheel of a car, or in front of a computer keyboard, and it may that Americans outnumber other offenders on the JFK forum only because they outnumber everyone when it comes to anxiety about the unsolved murder of their 35th President.

Edited February 1, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Evan Burton]

Use whatever methods you believe are fair, John. My suggestion is similar to others: a warning, stating why certain behaviour is considered unacceptable; then a 24 hour suspension, then a 7 day suspension, then a permanent ban.

If people won't learn to act according to the rules of the forum, then they have no place here.

[Antti Hynonen]

John, please go ahead and do whatever you think is best for the Forum. I do strongly support using warnings before completely banning a member.

Too bad it has come to this.

Antti

[Len Colby]

One thing that might help is actually having clear rules of conduct, the JFK Forum has rules perhaps they should be extended to the entire forum.

As to why Americans are the worst offenders I believe there are a few reasons:

1) As John suggested it’s partially cultural, Americans tend to be franker than other nationalities especially Britons (and I think Australians but I don’t know enough of them to be sure). I.E. we are less likely to feel constrained by notions of good manners in expressing how we feel. To some this may seem less polite but it also could be argued it’s more honest.

2) The most active posters here especially on the involved topics are Americans and thus are statistically far more likely to make offensive posts.

3) 9-11, JFK and Apollo are all American events and though they had worldwide repercussions it’s understandable that Americans would get more emotional about them.

The above is an explanation not an excuse and people regardless of their nationality or emotional attachment to an issue should refrain from insulting each other. I have at times been less than polite to other members but will try to refrain from doing so in the future.

One more point is that if a warning system is implanted the moderators should express in a post why exactly a member was being warned, perhaps a single thread for all warnings would be the best way to do this.

Len

[Ron Ecker]

Perhaps the forum could adopt a stock insult, a particular statement that anyone can make about a fellow member, as long as the person utilizing the insult immediately returns to civility. This would be the only insult allowed on the forum, as long as the insult is used infrequently and with discretion, reserved only for someone who absolutely deserves to be insulted.

Here are two insults, personal favorites of mine, either one of which I think would be a good stock insult for the forum:

"He/she has all the attributes of a dog except loyalty."

"If he/she was any dumber he/she would have to be watered twice a week."

Other forum members may have personal favorites to suggest. Just remember, though, that there is a psychological phenomenon known as spontaneous trait transference. The traits you describe in other people will be applied to you as well, however unconsciously, by the person(s) you're describing them to. You become associated with the characteristics you describe. So beware of this boomerang effect in insulting other people.

[Charles Black]

Len Colby

I sincerely wish that my statement of agreement with your last post does not put you in bad stead with this forum.

I, although I realize the possible consequences, cannot live with myself if I do not express what follows.

For a number of hours, I have both bitten my tongue and taped my fingers in a "sincere effort to not respond" to what I feel to be Andy Walker's unhidden antagonism toward "Americans", which he expressed in post #18 of this thread and has so done in the past.

I refer to the entire sentiment of this post, and in particular to his statement that "....many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively.."

Although I cannot call this truly "racist"....in my opinion, it could even be something much worse.

Andy...Am I at this moment "particularly poor at expressing" myself "effectively" ?

As it seems that your true "problem" seems more to be U.S. citizens rather than "forum misbehaviour",

I feel that the solution, which you might inwardly seek, has a most easy solution. Your inferences and rhetoric, seem more in agreement with the direct references to racial superiority, expressed by your Euro neighbors who frequently "dropped in on you" during the "forties".

Since I realize that I am one of those backward unfortunates, who has only recently emerged from the dregs of the swamplands of Florida, here in the New World, I hope that you wont find it necessary to find an interpreter for this post !

Charlie Black

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Soldier one"Caruthers"

Soldier two"Yes sir"

Soldier one"Unleash the Hippie"

Soldier two"But Sir...."

Soldier one"Just do it Man"

THE CREAKING OF AN ANCIENT CAGE DOOR IS HEARD, AS IT SLOWLY OPENS,AN UNKEMPT CREATURE, WITH LONG DANK HAIR WEARING A kAFTAN, LOVE BEADS, FLAIRED HIPSTERS AND SANDALS STAGGERS INTO VIEW.

"Hey brothers and Sisters, get on the peace train man, all this like hate man, its real bad Karma man, lets celebrate mother nature, you know, within us, and without us you dig man lets give peace a chance....

Soldier one coshes the Hippie smartly across the back of his head, the Hippie falls unconcious to the floor.

Soldier two"Now stop fighting you orrible lot, or we'll wake im up."

[John Geraghty]

I believe that the bickering and name calling by some members does a diservice to the forum and also makes it less attractive to more professional members of the research community. Many do not wish to be associated with internet forums, precisely because of some of the behaviour seen on this forum.

I feel that it is not only the manner in which people conduct themselves that is flawed, but also the unscholarly manner in which they carry out their research. Too often in the political conspiracies section members have assessed means motive and opportunity and produced villains and guilty parties, whereas in actual fact this process gives you only suspects.

I shall name no names, as that will only further antagonise the situation.

I would favour the warning, temporary ban and then a final ban method of administration. In this method members would be disciplined much the same as a child would be (certain members using schoolyard language and preschool research techniques).

That is my short view on the matter.

John Geraghty

[Michael G. Smith]

I believe that the bickering and name calling by some members does a diservice to the forum and also makes it less attractive to more professional members of the research community. Many do not wish to be associated with internet forums, precisely because of some of the behaviour seen on this forum.

I feel that it is not only the manner in which people conduct themselves that is flawed, but also the unscholarly manner in which they carry out their research. Too often in the political conspiracies section members have assessed means motive and opportunity and produced villains and guilty parties, whereas in actual fact this process gives you only suspects.

I shall name no names, as that will only further antagonise the situation.

I would favour the warning, temporary ban and then a final ban method of administration. In this method members would be disciplined much the same as a child would be (certain members using schoolyard language and preschool research techniques).

That is my short view on the matter.

John Geraghty

Personally, I havent been here long at all, compared to others. I have listened and bit my tongue alot in the beginning, but as it grew on I felt I had to say things a few times to people, [in a polite, but firm way] that they were not acting like they should. Not just in responce to my posts but others [Jack White attacks]. I always try to be polite and courteous to all, and expect the same in return. I dont need blowhards full of hot air spouting off at me or others. I beleive in the old, "one, two, three strikes your out" addage. Warn them, if needed again, and then kick them out on their collective asses if they cant act in an adult, proffessional, and respectful manner. I always end my posts with "Just my opinion FWIW", and that is what they are...my opinions. People dont have to agree or like my opinions, but at least have respect for them and move on. If you want to discuss why I may feel that way, Fine. Dont be a smartass and mouthoff at me for whatever reason you feel led. Most people have been very nice and respectful, but there are a few who continue to be that way. If someone lists a thought, new, fresh, and "out of the box", maybe we should look at it, think about it, as it may have not been looked at in that way before. But you hear the " what do you have to prove that, or what do you have to disprove it" crap. Maybe it is a new idea or thought, and it doesnt have anything to prove or disprove it with yet, because it is "out of the box" and there isnt anything. Does that mean that persons thoughts are wrong?? No. Discuss things in an adult manner. I am the first to have fun, and kid around, but being mean and hurtful purposefully, is wrong. There are certain people who are here to disrupt, and redirect certain topics that come up, because they are close to the truth, and these peoples jobs are to get it stamped out before it grows! This forum attracts alot of people, important people with connections to the JFK assassination. They are here to either listen, and contribute. Or they are here to disrupt when things get a little too "good". I hope bringing this topic up helps to get rid of the BS that has been going on for sometime. Thanks John and Andy. Just my opinion FWIW.

thanks- smitty

[Myra Bronstein]

Perhaps the forum could adopt a stock insult, a particular statement that anyone can make about a fellow member, as long as the person utilizing the insult immediately returns to civility. This would be the only insult allowed on the forum, as long as the insult is used infrequently and with discretion, reserved only for someone who absolutely deserves to be insulted.

Here are two insults, personal favorites of mine, either one of which I think would be a good stock insult for the forum:

"He/she has all the attributes of a dog except loyalty."

"If he/she was any dumber he/she would have to be watered twice a week."

Other forum members may have personal favorites to suggest. Just remember, though, that there is a psychological phenomenon known as spontaneous trait transference. The traits you describe in other people will be applied to you as well, however unconsciously, by the person(s) you're describing them to. You become associated with the characteristics you describe. So beware of this boomerang effect in insulting other people.

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron!

Here's my entry:

"Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?"

[Jack White]

Perhaps the forum could adopt a stock insult, a particular statement that anyone can make about a fellow member, as long as the person utilizing the insult immediately returns to civility. This would be the only insult allowed on the forum, as long as the insult is used infrequently and with discretion, reserved only for someone who absolutely deserves to be insulted.

Here are two insults, personal favorites of mine, either one of which I think would be a good stock insult for the forum:

"He/she has all the attributes of a dog except loyalty."

"If he/she was any dumber he/she would have to be watered twice a week."

Other forum members may have personal favorites to suggest. Just remember, though, that there is a psychological phenomenon known as spontaneous trait transference. The traits you describe in other people will be applied to you as well, however unconsciously, by the person(s) you're describing them to. You become associated with the characteristics you describe. So beware of this boomerang effect in insulting other people.

Ron...I take offense at your ad caninominen attack on dogs.

Some of my best and most loyal friends have been dogs. I prefer the company

of a dog to many people I could name.

I have always wondered why "son of a bitch" was an insult, since most of the

dogs I have owned were females and wonderful beings, and comparing a mother

to them might be complimentary.

So please list unfavorable canine character attributes for us if you expect us

to adopt comparison to dogs as an insult. I would consider it an honor to be

compared to dogs I have known.

Jack