James R Gordon

Thank you Cory and others.

The Guest Users are a serious issue. Why at this moment in time to a significant number only log in for seconds and leave. And this every moment of the day. I have had a communication from Invision where I was informed that "It does seem due to the legacy domain (.ipbhost.com) that some network firewall rules were not being properly applied. This is now happening," This email was sent two hours before your email. So after this matter - according to Invision - has now been corrected and yet two hours later you have reported that there are 65 Guest Users on line.

 

Thanks Michael,

I had not understood in 2017 what you were saying. I will ask about what tools we have to see “most active” or “most recently” viewed threads.

When Invision get back to me I now have a number of questions for them.

Michael,

That is really interesting. How do you get the system to print the total number of guests.

At this moment the system appears to suggeststhere are 180 Guests on line.

Invision are promising to get back to me on Monday. I will raise their statemet about Online Visitors. That statement suggests online visitors are our problem. Well that is going to change on Monday,

Your listing of 3,662 guests ought to increase our monthly payment. What I am now waiting to see is whether there is a charge beyond their present stated limit. Your identified 3,662 limit is way beyond that.

Thank you.

Cory mentioned yesterday that at one point there was 95 Guest Users. At the moment the site registers 51 Guest users whereas there are 8 JFK Debate speakers.

This is a serious weakness in Invision's systems. We are billed for all those users yet we have no control over them. I am not certain whether this site attack - for that is what it is - is just against us or also Invision sytems.

I have pulled financing this site until matters are resolved to my satisfaction. If the situation is not resolved by January 4th the site will go dark. Before I restore payment I am going to insist we have control of Guest users. These people - if they are malicious - can financially ruin site owners.

In my view this is a serious weakness in Invision Systems. They have left a back door open through which malicious people can bring down a site by daily increasing the owners cost. We should be paying $70 per month however currently the monthly cost is $590. I expect a further increase tonight or tomorrow. The weakness for sites like ours is the subscription is automatically triggered by User numbers. It is not a decision made by Invision management. They appear not to question subsciption increases.

Hopefully this matter will be resolved before January 4th, but if it is not expect the site to go dark and remain dark until this matter is resolved.

This is strictly an Invision systems matter. They own the site and they host our site and I place the responsibility for resolving it to our satisfaction  - on them.

Hi everyone.

I have just been informed that there has been a further spike in on-line users. The new monthly charge is $590 per month. The new user level is 571 over the past 48 hours.

There is no reason to doubt that in the following 48 hours there will be a further spike.

If this is not sorted out by the end of December I am going to have to default on payment until this matter is resolved. That means the site will go dark. I will be out of money at this rate. Hopefully Invision will have solved the problem by then.

I have just had the following message from Invision

I'm sorry for the delay here, we are reviewing your traffic currently, since this has already passed on the traffic spike it's something that is being reviewed by our network team.   We will be back with you on your original ticket as soon as we have some further information. 

I have forwarded this to Invision. At present they are slow to respond.

Good idea. When invision get back to me I'll the issue with them and see what it entails.

I have contacted Invision and asked whether it is possible to detach the JFK forum from the rest of the EF. Essentially we would be talking about deleting the remainder of the EF. I have yet to hear back from Invision.

Cliff is right a monthly donation would certainly be he;pful, though we have never had regular monthly donations.

My real fear is the is EF users activity increases then $353 may not be the end of the matter and in future we will see further increases.

James.

Cliff,

It is a debatable point that there will be 17 members who will be prepared to donate $25 per month. At present we are being charged over $300 per month. If usage of the other forums increases Invision will increase our charge. That is the issue that bothers me.

2 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

I would suspect that viewer traffic may include the entire board of topics of which this forum is only one piece.  I don't know who owns this overall board.   Is there any way to make inactive forums for those other topics invisible?  

Again, I'd ask Invision for a better accounting to explain the drastic jump in cost.  That is a reasonable expectation.

I absolutely agree. We are being charged as the entire "Education Forum" and not the IFK Assassination Forum. It appears there is increased traffic on these other forums. These other forums are not moderated - though they once were. Therfore visitors need not be formalised members. On these forum guests are allowed. Looking at the pages of full listing the vast majority are guests and many who only appear for a few seconds. I believe any guest who may only appear for a few seconds - and are not on the JFK assassination forum - are listed as a User.

I do not believe we can - nor should we donate to support all the forums on the EF. On the present usage of the EF we would need to raise $4000 per year. If that usage increases so will our subscription. I am fast coming to the opinion that this is an unsustainable situation. I cannot see a way that the membership of the JFK will be able to raise funds for the whole EF.  I feel that when the present sums are spent the EF may come to an end.

If you click on "All Users" at the bottom of the page. At present i see 4 pages of on-line users. If we cannot deal with that we will close.

I agree Stephanie. This is why I am wondering whether what Invision are counting is not just the JFK forum but the entire Education Forum. I am not sure we can control that and - it may be the $353 per month may not be an end of the matter.

No we have not. The last time we had over 343 users on-line over a 48 hour period we were actually under attack and Invision sorted the issue. I am wondering whether there are users are genuine - and may include visitors either to the JFK forum or to the other forums on the site. If it is that - legitimate visitors - then we may not be able to sustain this.

I am shocked at the $335 subscription. However if these visitors continue to increase then $335 need not be the end of the matter.

I need to make the membership aware of a situation that has just arisen. In November our subscription to Invision was $75 a month, In late November - because Invision noticed our daily users over a 48 hour period had exceeded 200 - our subscription was increased to $130 per month. Today I have been informed that our users have further exceeded to 343 during a 48 hour period and our subscription has been increased to $335 per month beginning in January 2000.

I have emailed Invision to query this figure - I cannot understand how in two consecutive months our on-line users can increase to that extent and our subscription go from $75 to $335 per month.. So far I have heard nothing from Invision - which is strange and suggests to me they believe this figure of daily users is right/

$353 per month is over $4000 a year. Due to the generosity of the membership this year we have sufficient funds till around October 2000.

I do not feel the generosity of the present membership can sustain making donations of over $4000 each year. I therefore have to announce that this site will probably come to an end in late 2000.

James

 

The EF forum is owned by Invision. We do not own this site - we lease it from Invision - and the kinds of options above are not open to us.

If we did own the site that would be a different matter.

I am not unsympathetic to the ideas expressed and if this were an independently owned site that would be different.

James.

Kathy and Forum members,

I apologies I should have made this clear earlier.. DVP boasted on another forum that the measures I initially took had no effect - except the ability to post - and that he could still enter the forum. One member pointed out that only by banning his IP's would we sucessfully keep him out of  the forum. Unfortunately Invision informed me that the only way to do that was to Ban him as well as banning his IP's.

Reluctantly I have banned  DVP as well as his IP addresses.

That was not what I initially intended, but without doing that there was no guarantee that DVP would not return to the forum and copy whatever he wanted.

I am sorry I should have announced I had done this earlier.

Regarding DVP's posts they still exist. Of course he can ask for them to be deleted. As a point of interest it should be noted that if a member asks for their posts be deleted we can do that except any post that lead's a thread. Those posts cannot be deleted and are not deleted.

James

I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website.

Kirk,

I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material. As Bart has posted above, DVP was asked to remove the material. On its own I understand that would have ended the matter. DVP refused to comply.

True DVP has done this for years, but I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used. Because of this argument I have looked at DVP's site. It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context and edited by him to support the thread he is creating. In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore  DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum.

Hopefully the EF will now make it impossible for him to continue to do this,

Finally Kirk, you are absolutely right everyone has a right to post their opinions here. But DVP's has two opinion. There are the posts he used to make here  on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website.

James.

I believe this matter may now be resolved. I will keep an eye out for him, but I believe DVD is no longer able to enter the site and therefore copy members work.

James

David,

By your own admission tou are copying members work and editing it. In the case of the Bill Kelly thread you have selected what you feel is pertinent to your purpose.

I am sorry that is wholly unacceptable to copy EF work edit it and place it on a foreign site for which no member of this site has editorial access.

I am sorry to have to say this, but tomorrow I will remove your access to this site. I will not allow this behaviour to continue.

James

 

The rules of the site are:-

 

General Posting Behaviour:-

No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions.

Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable.

Solicitation of goods and/or services is not permitted. This is a Forum for discussion.

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

 

No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying

 

Members are responsible for what they post on this board. A member

will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or

defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane,

sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise

violative of any law.

 

Action:-

If such behaviour is detected the member will be reminded through a

PM. If behaviour repeated there will be an instant withdrawal of a weeks posting

privileges. If after returning there is a further insurance then there will be

an immediate indefinite withdrawal of posting privileges.

 

Membership Behaviour:- Limited Posts per Week.

Members of the admin team who notice members disregarding the accepted modes of behaviour:-

i. insulting and taunting fellow members

ii. using language that members know to be prohibited

iii. bumping posts in order to alert the attention of fellow members not being repeated during a 24 hour period

iv. and similar aspects of behaviour

these members may find that they have had their posting allowance limited to two – or in extreme exceptions limited to one post per week.

Warning may well not be issued – members are aware of the rules of the forum and are expected to abide by these rules.

Initially the penalty will last for a week. Only in extreme cases will it last longer.

Membership repeated offences, may result in either a longer period of limited posts or a punishment of a different kind.

 

Voicing For Banned Members:-

It is deemed to be a breach of the rules where a current member posts on behalf of a banned member. It is relatively easy to identify when such a breach may be taking place if requested by a member to post on their behalf. Safest to post for yourself and not on behalf of others.

The penalty will be that the offending member will be placed on "Two Posts a Day" for a a period of time.

Racism:-

Racism will not be tolerated on this forum. Action will be taken whenever and wherever it is seen on the forum. If the racism is particularly offensive the member will be expelled immediately and without warning.

Chaotic Threads:-

Threads which descend into chaos may be completely deleted.

Accusations of Member Credibility:-

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is

using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members

at forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this

forum:-

Action:-

Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members:-

Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may loose their posting privileges or indeed be banned.

General Comment:-

Having posted these Terms of Forum Use, no further warnings will be given.

If members need to consider if a link, a word or sequence of words will be acceptable - to post or not post before posting, - then we would advise not to post such words or terms.

Membership in The Education Forum is voluntary, subject to approval by the owners of the Forum. Suspension of member, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum.

Limitation of Liability

Posts on the Education Forum are owned by the individual members who post there and who are SOLELY responsible for the content of their posts, and that the Education Forum, as an entity, is in no way responsible for the content of the posts.

THEREFORE IN NO EVENT WILL THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES RELATING TO LOST REVENUES OR PROFITS, LOST DATA, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION) RESULTING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON OR MADE AVAILABLE IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS OR ANY OTHER WEB SITE TO WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED OR ON WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED TO THESE DISCUSSION FORUMS, EVEN IF THE ADMINISTRATING TEAM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY ON WHICH SUCH DAMAGES ARE BASED.

Edited August 3, 2018 by James R Gordon

 

 

David,

I have grave reservations that you print everything a member says.

In this page

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-1.html

from 2010 there is screeds from you and a small paragraph from James D 'E. Are you arguing that the small section you published from James was all he had to say.

The Bill Kelly post is a six page thread. Please provide the link to your site which demonstrates that you published every word.

From looking at your site it appears to me you edit.

James

 

To all concerned.

I have had a number of complaints on this issue. To be honest, until Bart and James DiEugenio got in touch did it begin to dawn on me what the problem was.

I have no concern with David archiveing his own material. However I see his archive incudes contributions from other members. From what I gather, the complaints refer to the points that the others being archived are not being represented fairly. Put simply David appears to be editing other members comments. I believe David may also be copying members original research without permission. To fair to David he appears to be trying to establish a chronological argument. But it appears he is doing so by editing the viewis of fellow members - as opposed to a full copy of their views. And the complaint is that the edit has changed what members both believe and said.

This is not a banning offence - at least I do not think it is. But what David is doing is offensive to members especially as the members arguments is being edited by David  - and in the eyes of those members  - David is misrepresenting their work and research, And the problem - as I see it - is that these edited members views are being published on a foreign site and is done without the permission of the members.

There is only one option open here. This is not a banning offense and restricting David's posting rights will not work because he can still copy members materials. The only option is to  deny David access to the site. The EF has never done this before, but looking at the complaints - and the legitimacy of the complaints - unless access to the site is denied David is free to copy verbatum members work and edit it as pleases him.

I feel it is terrible it has come to this. Although I disagree with David's views he is a respected researcher. But the essential point is that fellow members do not have editorial access to their work on David's site On his site, David is the editor of EF members ideas and views and the complaint is that David is misrepresenting their position.

So here is what is going to happen. Starting tomorrow if members see that David is still copying and pasting their research onto his site then please immediately inform me, I will then immediately remove David's access to this site. Hopefully David will read this and immediately stop this.

James

 

B.A.

I deleted the links. There is a rule against references to banned members. I realise Greg is an acknowledged researcher and I was reluctant to delete the links since it may be that it was not a reference to Greg but his research.

I deleted because i was not sure where reference to Greg would end up.

I do not want reference and debate about Greg to dominate the forum.

However if members are only concerned with discussing Greg's research - and not Greg himself - I am happy for you to restore the link.

James.