Are JFK forums constuctive?

[Dawn Meredith]

Having been on this forum since 10/27 and metting some wonderful people, I

have also wondering just how constructive this actually is.

I see such FIGHTING. It permeates the forums, and those who engage in this the most appear to do so with an agenda: destroy the forum, get rid of people who can add, instead bring it down to the mob level mentality, go for the throat.

SO what's the point? I thought we all agreed on this, but .....only some of us do.

Now I am on WIm's forum too and BOB VERNON is taking it OVER> It's just insane.

So, back to my question: are forums constructive, re this case?

Or are there just TOO many with an agenda, personal, or political= (destruction of the truth seekers collective collaboration).

So this is my quandry, it this a waste of my time?

How real can people really be in cyberspace? I know and trust some here, even tho never met, but the need to dual is simply lethal. Not constructive.

ANd I do mean "Need". No need to mention names.

Dawn

[Ron Ecker]

This forum and Lancer, the two I'm familiar with and belong to, are certainly constructive. There is invaluable information here, and there are members with expertise to call on for more info when needed. This place is a gold mine.

The only other forum I joined was McAdams's, and my first post was censored, it never appeared. So much for that forum.

It's true that there is a lot of fighting or squabbling, or tends to be, on JFK forums. I have a theory about that. I believe that these forums attract people who are angry to start with. They're still pissed off that a U.S. president got his brains blown out over 40 years ago and nothing has been done about it. People who are mad to start with tend to have a short fuse or might respond irritably to someone who disagrees with them on who was behind the assassination, how it went down, etc. This must be constantly guarded against, which is why it's good to have rules of behavior.

Some kooks will also show up, of course, but by their words ye shall know them.

Ron

[Frank Agbat]

Dawn,

I understand your concern, and I've experienced the same feeling on occasion.

This forum and Lancer do seem to be generally constructive, in my opinion. I have not really looked much at Wim's so I cannot comment on it.

There is certainly plenty of momentum lost to bickering and name calling. I fear that we, as a community, might lose a gifted prospective researcher or ignore a theory (and the possible related discoveries, tangents, etc) due to this. I suspect a lot of this comes from the pure drive and passion of those who pursue this subject. It is quite unique in that regard -- 41+ years later, and it can still engender passionate debate.

In the grand summary, though, I've learned things from the various discussions on these forums that I doubt I would have picked up anywhere else.

Regards,

Frank

[Tim Gratz]

This forum and Lancer, the two I'm familiar with and belong to, are certainly constructive. There is invaluable information here, and there are members with expertise to call on for more info when needed. This place is a gold mine.

The only other forum I joined was McAdams's, and my first post was censored, it never appeared. So much for that forum.

It's true that there is a lot of fighting or squabbling, or tends to be, on JFK forums. I have a theory about that. I believe that these forums attract people who are angry to start with. They're still pissed off that a U.S. president got his brains blown out over 40 years ago and nothing has been done about it. People who are mad to start with tend to have a short fuse or might respond irritably to someone who disagrees with them on who was behind the assassination, how it went down, etc. This must be constantly guarded against, which is why it's good to have rules of behavior.

Some kooks will also show up, of course, but by their words ye shall know them.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar, and often convincing." Oscar Wilde (per James Richards). So long as we keep our differences of opinion professional rather than personal, it is the argument that not only enlightens but also entertains. What fun is it to discourse with someone who shares all of your ideas? Television talk shows long ago discovered that it is the controversy that generates the audience.

[Pamela Brown]

It seems to me threads can bog down when there is a lack of understanding of the different positions, as well as when personal invective enters in and rhetoric heightens. As I am an experienced poster at aaj I have learned some things the hard way -- when a subject is bogging down, let go and don't respond to every question. Use a brief response if you have a point to make. When posters continue being unresponsive and/or abusive, put them in a time out. You can just ignore their posts (probably the saner way) or define what you're doing. That way you can have a breather and a chance to do more research than posting. Recently at aaj a mod and an ex-mod objected to being put in time-out and ridiculed my doing that. So I killfiled them until the New Year.

Anyway, it is possible for each of us to ask what we are contributing, whether or not we are being understood, and how quickly the topic is (or not) moving forward, in order to attempt to maintain an orientation that is independent of the posters involved.

Yet each situation is different, and always surprising, and usually disappointing.

This is the most constructive forum that I am currently posting to. I hope I am contributing to its staying that way.

Pamela

[Dixie Dea]

Dawn

I replied to you in the Judyth thread, so won't repeat it here, But, I did want to mention that I have been lurking some at Wims Forum. I have not joined because I do not think I should join something where I believe hoaxes are being presented as truth.

I have nothing personal against Wim or Bob Vernon and have had good communication with both of them.

However, I am also a Member of Lancer and I did read where Wim invited Bob to join his forum. He did not just simply show up there to stir up trouble. I have also noticed where Wim has in fact been baiting Bob. And knowing Bob, I know he will also respond. That is exactly what has happened...and the war is on!

I am sure I was quite distressed when I first began with forums too. But, now I am able to get into or ignore what I choose to. I know it can be quite unsettling for someone new to all the seemingly cut-throat attitudes. Yet there are also a whole lot of good discussions on all the forums. My best thoughts are to just take what you need and leave the rest there!

Regards

Dixie

[Denis Morissette]

Dawn

My best thoughts are to just take what you need and leave the rest there!

Regards

Dixie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly the same philosophy that I have when I am invited to a dinner. I take what I need and leave the rest there!

[Dixie Dea]

Denis

Sometimes when I am feeling a bit stressed, I will read one of your posts and it sometimes makes me chuckle and then I feel a little better.....:-)

Dixie

[Denis Morissette]

Denis

Sometimes when I am feeling a bit stressed, I will read one of your posts and it sometimes makes me chuckle and then I feel a little better.....:-)

Dixie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad to put some sunshine in your heart, dear Dixie.

First two frames: Bell film and the third one shows Howard Brennan with hat in front of the TSBD.

[Bill Miller]

I am glad to put some sunshine in your heart, dear Dixie.

Denis - don't forget me and some of the fella's - we get a chuckle out of your post most of the time, as well.

[Al Carrier]

Dawn,

I know that I am part of your frustration in regards to the infighting on the forum, and would very much like to give you more insight on what has transpired since these squabbles but it is best that I leave it alone.

It may not mean much coming from me, but there is still constant advancement through forums such as this and most recently in the thread of "Did the Big Fish Know" that shows that we can work together and make progress. In this thread, issues were brought out from documents and testimony that we all have access to and many of us have read, but in this case it took a series of interpretations that made connections and brought a great deal to light. That is what this is all about. Persons from various walks of life and abilities to see issues and evidence from different perspectives that will forward this investigation.

Al

Edited January 6, 2005 by Al Carrier

[John Simkin]

Having been on this forum since 10/27 and metting some wonderful people, I

have also wondering just how constructive this actually is.

I see such FIGHTING.  It permeates the forums, and those who engage in this the most appear to do so with an agenda: destroy the forum, get rid of people who can add, instead bring  it down to the mob level mentality, go for the throat.

SO what's the point? I thought we all agreed on this, but .....only some of us do.

Now I am on WIm's forum too and BOB VERNON is taking it OVER> It's just insane.

So, back to my question: are forums constructive, re this case?

Or are there just TOO many with an agenda, personal,  or political= (destruction of the truth seekers collective collaboration).

So this is my quandry, it this a waste of my time?

You are right about some aspects of forums. Probably all people do join with an agenda. That is to solve the “crime of the century”. Some have other agendas, such as the desire to promote a certain theory of the assassination. That is not a problem as long as the individual concerned is willing to consider evidence that contradicts that theory. There are psychological reasons why that is difficult. After all, if you have been expressing ideas in public (in books, articles and forums) and then discover evidence that suggests you have been wrong, you have to be very confident in your intellect to admit you were wrong.

However, it is not only psychological. There are also economic reasons why members find it difficult to say they may have made a mistake. Some enter JFK research with the intention of making money by producing a book or video that solves the “crime of the century”. They have invested time and money into the project. Understandably, they do not take kindly to their theories being questioned. Especially by people who are more knowledgeable and intellectual than they are. Therefore they get very aggressive in debates.

I believe Wim Danbaar and Bob Vernon both fall into this category. As a result they will cause problems wherever they go. That is why they are both banned from this forum. (It is interesting that the number of people joining and posting on this forum has increased dramatically since Wim’s removal).

Wim knew what he was doing by allowing Bob Vernon to join his forum. He wanted a place where they could debate their conflict that he could control. (As administrator Wim can edit or censor Bob Vernon’s posts). I see he has now started a thread that includes a poll on whether Bob should be allowed to stay. I think we all know what the result of this poll will be.

Forums are great places for JFK researchers to ask questions and to discuss their theories. It is an excellent example of collective intelligence at work. I believe it has the potential to solve the case. That is why I am proud to be a member of this forum. It also gives me a great deal of pleasure being in the company of so many intelligent and brave people.

[Jim Hamilton]

On a personal level forums are a great way to read alternative information, my interest has beed rekindled over the last few months so really I'm playing catch up. Certainly people have diffrent motives but at the end its best not to walk down one path, listen to others, respect others views & achieve together.

[John Geraghty]

Personally I find it excellent, when i first joined there was so much to catch up on. A lot of the information discussed here such as elements of Cuban operations are not in any attainable books, so it is quite handy for everybody to cite their knowledge.

[Dawn Meredith]

I appreciate the imput from everyone. I agree with Pam the most. Actually I agree in part with everyone's posts.

I was very tired when I posted last nite, so made typos, did not express myself well. By agenda what I meant was not someone trying to sell a theory, but something far more sinister.

I have been in this world-(" critical community")- too long not to believe that there are many paid disinformation artists out there whose sole purpose is to destroy our attempts, be it on a forum, where it's so easy to hide and pretend to care about who killed jfk, but in fact are causing dissent and keeping people bogged down in this really fake dissent, THIS being this person's true goal.

That was the agenda to which I was referring.

Real dissent, over real issues in this case is constructive, and contribute greatly to the puzzle.

I disagree about Wim. I do not know him personally, but I do believe he is sincere. I believe he is completely interested in solving this case, in fact I know it.

I do hope he gets rid of BV on his forum. I think Wim, like you John, was trying to allow all views and in that regard Vernon stepped in and took over.

In the spirit of what you (John) called "divergent thinkers".

Al, I do appreciate your words because I did not think it was fair that when you and Tim were debating only Tim got barred from the forum, then Wim when he came to Tim's defense.

Dawn