The Future of this Forum

[John Simkin]

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

This is of course not true. It is especially ironic that it was posted on a forum that banned me from posting because I did not follow the “official” line. The whole purpose of Andy and myself setting up this forum was to allow freedom of speech (both Andy and myself were removed from a so-called education forum because the moderators disliked our political views).

We have both have done everything we can to allow everyone freedom expression. We have never attempted to censor anyone for what they have said. The only problem is that some members insist on making false statement or abusive comments about other members. Although the people who do this is in a very small minority (for some reason, they all appear to be very interested in photographic evidence about past events), attempting to persuade them to be courteous is a very time-consuming job. In fact, it was clear that they were completely unwilling to behave. In fact, it seemed that was the way they got their fun.

A few months ago I asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. I accepted the six who volunteered: John Geraghty, Stephen Turner, Gary Loughran, Antti Hynonen, Evan Burton and Kathy Beckett. I did so because all of them had never been accused of making abusive comments. They behaved in the way that I wanted all members to behave. In my opinion they have done a great job. In fact, I am amazed they have been willing to do this thankless task.

In return, I am committed to giving them my full support. I do not read the threads that cause all the trouble on this forum. I am not terribly interested in the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination and the moon landings. I rely on the moderators to keep me informed about the abusive comments people make. They usually deal with this by editing out the worst examples of personal abusive. However, recently, Jack White has started several threads that have been completely untrue. It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense. While I agree we should be more generous in our attitudes towards our senior citizens, there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. I therefore accepted Evan’s suggestion that Jack should have his posts moderated for a period. This does not mean that Jack is being censored. Nor does it mean that Evan is Jack’s parole officer. Jack posts in the normal way. Any moderator or administrator reads the posts and if they are not abusive, they are made visible.

The idea that “forum has been taken over by Lamson, Burton and Colby” is ridiculous. Only one is a moderator and anyone who reads the “political conspiracies” section will no that I rarely agree with Craig and Len about anything. However, they always behave in a courteous manner and have never needed to be put on moderation.

To Whom It May Concern:

Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause.

Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense.

Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on the truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum.

Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum.

Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

[Miles Scull]

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

This is of course not true. It is especially ironic that it was posted on a forum that banned me from posting because I did not follow the “official” line. The whole purpose of Andy and myself setting up this forum was to allow freedom of speech (both Andy and myself were removed from a so-called education forum because the moderators disliked our political views).

We have both have done everything we can to allow everyone freedom expression. We have never attempted to censor anyone for what they have said. The only problem is that some members insist on making false statement or abusive comments about other members. Although the people who do this is in a very small minority (for some reason, they all appear to be very interested in photographic evidence about past events), attempting to persuade them to be courteous is a very time-consuming job. In fact, it was clear that they were completely unwilling to behave. In fact, it seemed that was the way they got their fun.

A few months ago I asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. I accepted the six who volunteered: John Geraghty, Stephen Turner, Gary Loughran, Antti Hynonen, Evan Burton and Kathy Beckett. I did so because all of them had never been accused of making abusive comments. They behaved in the way that I wanted all members to behave. In my opinion they have done a great job. In fact, I am amazed they have been willing to do this thankless task.

In return, I am committed to giving them my full support. I do not read the threads that cause all the trouble on this forum. I am not terribly interested in the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination and the moon landings. I rely on the moderators to keep me informed about the abusive comments people make. They usually deal with this by editing out the worst examples of personal abusive. However, recently, Jack White has started several threads that have been completely untrue. It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense. While I agree we should be more generous in our attitudes towards our senior citizens, there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. I therefore accepted Evan’s suggestion that Jack should have his posts moderated for a period. This does not mean that Jack is being censored. Nor does it mean that Evan is Jack’s parole officer. Jack posts in the normal way. Any moderator or administrator reads the posts and if they are not abusive, they are made visible.

The idea that “forum has been taken over by Lamson, Burton and Colby” is ridiculous. Only one is a moderator and anyone who reads the “political conspiracies” section will no that I rarely agree with Craig and Len about anything. However, they always behave in a courteous manner and have never needed to be put on moderation.

To Whom It May Concern:

Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause.

Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense.

Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on the truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum.

Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum.

Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

John,

Please accept my thanks for maintaining this excellent forum at your own personal expense under sometime trying conditions.

If you will pardon me for being succinct, I will give my opinion.

All that needs to be done is that the moderators must simply & rigorously & equably enforce forum rule number 4.

Some moderators do not do so firmly and/or equably.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Those members who violate this rule should be placed first on temporary monitoring & then, with no improvement, they should be placed on permanent monitoring or banishment.

It is easy for a moderator to spot a member who is demeaning the motivations of other members.

Forum Rule Number 4 is quite clear & straight forward.

If in future I or you or Jack White or Bill Miller or anyone violate rule # 4, then let the great axe fall.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Antti Hynonen]

John,

I am all for option 2. (Moderation). All those who repeatedly fail to follow the rules need to be placed on moderation or banned from the Forum all together. The restricting of posting rights seems to be the only method that efficiently gets rid of the problem. This Forum is a key resource for researching and discussing evidence, therefore it should not even be considered for shutting down (IMO).

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

This is of course not true. It is especially ironic that it was posted on a forum that banned me from posting because I did not follow the “official” line. The whole purpose of Andy and myself setting up this forum was to allow freedom of speech (both Andy and myself were removed from a so-called education forum because the moderators disliked our political views).

We have both have done everything we can to allow everyone freedom expression. We have never attempted to censor anyone for what they have said. The only problem is that some members insist on making false statement or abusive comments about other members. Although the people who do this is in a very small minority (for some reason, they all appear to be very interested in photographic evidence about past events), attempting to persuade them to be courteous is a very time-consuming job. In fact, it was clear that they were completely unwilling to behave. In fact, it seemed that was the way they got their fun.

A few months ago I asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. I accepted the six who volunteered: John Geraghty, Stephen Turner, Gary Loughran, Antti Hynonen, Evan Burton and Kathy Beckett. I did so because all of them had never been accused of making abusive comments. They behaved in the way that I wanted all members to behave. In my opinion they have done a great job. In fact, I am amazed they have been willing to do this thankless task.

In return, I am committed to giving them my full support. I do not read the threads that cause all the trouble on this forum. I am not terribly interested in the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination and the moon landings. I rely on the moderators to keep me informed about the abusive comments people make. They usually deal with this by editing out the worst examples of personal abusive. However, recently, Jack White has started several threads that have been completely untrue. It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense. While I agree we should be more generous in our attitudes towards our senior citizens, there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. I therefore accepted Evan’s suggestion that Jack should have his posts moderated for a period. This does not mean that Jack is being censored. Nor does it mean that Evan is Jack’s parole officer. Jack posts in the normal way. Any moderator or administrator reads the posts and if they are not abusive, they are made visible.

The idea that “forum has been taken over by Lamson, Burton and Colby” is ridiculous. Only one is a moderator and anyone who reads the “political conspiracies” section will no that I rarely agree with Craig and Len about anything. However, they always behave in a courteous manner and have never needed to be put on moderation.

To Whom It May Concern:

Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause.

Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense.

Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on the truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum.

Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum.

Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

As a Democrat it pains me to say this but I vote for number one. Even in a democracy rules are rules, and anyone breaking those rules must expect to pay the price of transgression. Freedom of speech is a Human right, but along with rights come responsibilities to the wider community. What a pity some have yet to learn that particular lesson.

Steve.

[Evan Burton]

being central to this dispute, I abstain from comment and will abide by any and all decisions made by John & Andy.

[Stephen Roy]

While I often lurk, I don't often post here, preferring to post only when I have something to add, such as on David Ferrie matters. But I want to add a few thoughts here.

I appreciate this forum and all who post here, irrespective of disagreements. I incline more to inclusion than exclusion. It bothers me when people get whipped into a fenzy to expel this person or that person.

Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field.

alt.conspiracy.jfk is open to all without moderation, but it is hard to wade through all the attack posts to get anything substantive. alt.assassination.jfk (despite the feelings of some about John McAdams and co.) manages to get more substantive discussion by follwoing the simple moderation rule that any permutation of "you are wrong" is permitted, and any permutation of "you are bad" is not. I have had a few posts returned for editing after inadvertently stepping over the line. It ain't perfect, but it works fairly well. So I favor maximum inclusion, but offering those who go too far the opportunity to edit or withdraw their posts.

From a moderator's perspective, I can see Jack as a problem. I respect what he has done and the position he has earned in this field, but he is often (IMO) wrong, cranky, unopen to criticism and prone to see conspiracies against him. As a result, his behaviour may well be perceived as disruptive. (In fairness, some of his opponents give as well as they get, however.)

How to handle him? I think the mods have it right. Allow him to post, but apply a filter to ensure that he follows the rules. And apply the same standards to others, as necessary. But the overriding principle is to encourage maximum inclusion, consistent with the minimum necessary use of moderation.

This is a good group. Let's not screw it up.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Stephen Roy

[Len Colby]

I would say option 2) first for a limited period. I imagine having to approve posts puts an undue burden on moderators. If the member learns to behave take them off moderation, if not suspended them. If after being taken off moderation the person once again becomes problematic temporarily suspend them. After coming off suspension they should be subject to zero tolerance and permanently booted for all but the most trivial violations.

[Charles Drago]

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

John,

Before I respond to your post, I must be certain that you are aware of the respect I harbor for your efforts here -- and for the sacrifices you make to keep the website viable.

Silence is an unacceptable response to evil. It is, however, a viable tactic in a grander strategy to defeat those forces that would make silence mandatory.

My intent in calling for a boycott of posts on the JFK Forum was to employ that tactic.

Should this Forum be closed down, the enemies of the truth will have won a considerable victory. Such a turn of events must not be permitted it to occur.

For years I have argued against the extensions of collegiality and other forms of deference to the enemy who advance in the guise of honest researchers. Not a single counter-argument to date has persuaded me to abandon this position.

The problem, of course, is how to differentiate between well-meaning commentators with whom people of good conscience can honorably disagree, and agents provocateurs who assume deep cover by playing those roles?

I have not a shard of wisdom to share in the form of a viable solution, other than this: As Louis Armstrong said about jazz, "You know it when you hear it."

Yesterday, after an enemy of the truth publicly accused me -- on your Forum -- of intellectual dishonesty, I filed a report with the moderators. In it, I made certain to note that I had no problem whatsoever with the insult; after all, I had considered the source -- one who, by the way, regularly defames Jack White with impunity. Rather, I simply asked that Forum rules be applied fairly to all posters.

Today I received a prompt and satisfying response from Antti. He expressed his agreement with my position, I take him at his word, and I consider the matter closed.

With your permission, then, I shall continue to post on this and Forum. At the same time, please know that I reserve the right to expose our enemies in suitable fashion.

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

[Mark Stapleton]

Any threat to the Forum's viability would be a disappointing development for opinionated windbags like me.

I think it's a storm in a teacup. Evan Burton seems a little zealous in enforcing the rules, but the section of the Forum which he is responsible for moderating is where the Forum's fiercest debates take place. To lose Jack's input would be a great loss, imo, and if anyone should be granted latitude for his passionate opinions it should be Jack. He's paid his dues.

[Alan Healy]

Maybe there should be a private forum with restrictive access where anything goes(ok not anything but full expression of laungage & opinions) & those that agree to enter it, either to read or take part by posting, know what there getting into if they go there?

Maybe they could even moderate themselves to some degree, not by editing posts of course but by self expression. You could also throw the troublemakers there too(until they prove themselves) & anyone that wants to argue with them knows where to find them.

I don't know how it would work exactly, I'm just throwing an idea out.

I hope thing get easier for you & the mods soon John.

[Guest]

Apologies for not responding to this thread earlier but we are currently in the process of moving half the school into a new purpose built school building half a mile away from the old building which is pressing on my time somewhat to say the least

John Simkin's actions have been perfectly reasonable and extremely patient in his handling of Jack White. In fact I believe he has been far too indulgent of Jack's excesses for far too long This whole controversy started I believe with Jack's inability to log on correctly and then deliberately misinterpreting the message he received when trying to post when not logged on as some grand conspiracy against by the evil moderators. He then abused and traduced them in his usual inelegant and unpleasant style. Jack has been warned about this on many occasions and now has been put under moderation - quite a predictable consequence of an oft repeated behaviour. The accusations Jack has made about the forum moderators and the forum himself constitute fantastic nonsense.

Though I believe he is quite elderly dealing with Jack White is like dealing with a small child. I would suggest that Jack is loving the attention he is now getting and has engineered this situation quite deliberately to attract yet more. He is not banned from posting but has significantly not posted since being under moderation... Well done Jack... enjoy the attention while it lasts..... I would hope however that those here genuinely interested in research or education will continue to post topics of interest like rational and polite human beings. If Jack wishes to join in he is perfectly at liberty to do so.

[John Dolva]

There are many creative responses here.

IMO Johns analysis, comments and questions are legitimate.

I started participating with a false understanding. As a result my initial posts were expressions of shock and disgust at various things including being accused of plagiarism. As someone with some university research background this is one of the worst crimes one can be accused of. It turned out to be a result of misunderstandings and the people I confronted (and in the process no doubt created an unwarranted reputation for myself). have developed a reasonably respectful relationship. For me the education forum has not only been a factual education but also an evolution of growing understanding of myself. I'm grateful for all the personal attacks as they have taught me about myself and they have become water over a ducks back to large extent. People are simply being people, that's their choice. I have the same choice.

In a sense I am free to choose to own reactions, existing for whatever reason(s), or attempt to distribute them to others to deal with (if they wish, and as is human nature, there is a tenedency to pour petrol rather than water on fire believing somehow they will be extinguished).

These are important lessons that closing the forum would deny a 'healing' process or correction to take place over time within the mind body phenomena. This is IMO an important function of education and thus an acceptable part of an Education Forum.

There are some who deliberately, instinctively, ignorantly, or in a process of evolution misuse this knowledge of disabling 'opponents' by goading and attacking. This will always be so. The lesson to learn is to see past the attack to the message (if there is one) and solely deal with that, plus a thank you for the opportunity to uncover and resolve a reactive component within myself and come to own it and keep it and take personal reponsibility for it. Thus the cycle of cause and effect is brought to heel.

In the process intransigents start to stand out and then a series of responses are activated. (I personally like the three stage process alluded to here by John, as I understand it, and to elaborate on that: firstly an 'offender' is made aware of the possible mistake; secondly, having digested that, the offender is free to choose to follow a clearly spelled out cause and effect process, the reponse may be argumentative, compliant, misunderstanding or a more deep seated personal problem, and as a result phase three may or may not be implemented: further intransigence is a declaration of an unwillingness to abide with the rulings. This in effect means that the person has choosen freely to suffer the consequences (or perhaps, maybe being legends in their own minds, aim for 'martyrdom'). IOW the moderated or expelled person has choosen. The moderators are merely accomodating this choice. This is freedom. It is not a fault or wrongful behaviour by the moderators at all, in any way.

Edited October 2, 2007 by John Dolva

[Pamela Brown]

John,

Why not rethink the entire project and decide what you want to get out of it? You and Andy are the ones bearing the responsibility for this forum. Whatever it is that is most important to you, then, you should be able to achieve.

Moderating here seems to be at times more of a problem than a solution. What if a separate section of the forum was defined as a place where there was no moderation? Members could post there at will and those creating time-consuming issues for the mods could just be allowed to post in the unrestrained section.

I too have been through the difficulties with banning posters. I just don't think that's a viable alternative.

Best wishes, whatever you do.

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field.

[...]

nonsense, if your not aware of the 10 year history of JFKResearch, you should educate yourself BEFORE you insert foot into mouth.... even ole Len Colby can be seen at JFKResearch these day's, fancy that!

[Mark Knight]

This forum has served as a marketplace of ideas and information regarding the JFK assassination, one without peer on the entire internet. Occasionally, an impassioned poster crosses the line between discussion and argument [argument being the more vulgar and less civilized of the two]. Upon occasion, I've found Andy's comments to be more akin to adding gasoline to the fires, but that IS simply my perception, and I also recognize that Andy has a right, as owner of the house, to both set AND to violate the house rules at will. That's one of the perks of ownership, and I accept it because it simply goes with the territory.

Having said that, I've witnessed some of the situation with Jack White, and I'm saddened by what has transpired. While Jack has contributed to the collective knowledge about the JFK assassination, of late Jack's on-site behavior has prompted me to feel sympathy for Jack...NOT because his posts are being moderated, but because he feels persecuted by the whole ordeal. AS for Jack's tormentors, one must also remember that, when driving, the driver who precipitates the accident often escapes unscathed, to cause someone else to crash and burn another day. And the insurance companies reward the unscathed driver, oblivious to the carnage their favored drivers have caused. I sense a parallel in the forum here.

But it's not MY house. It's John's and Andy's world here, and I'm just walkin' through it. I believe I have finally reached the point where most often I choose to withdraw upon occasion, rather than to respond when baited and risk expulsion from the forum. It's a shame that someone of Jack White's stature in the assassination community hasn't apparently seen the value in walking away from a fight, and returning to make his point on another day.