James R Gordon

Let me be perfectly clear here. The reference to "Dougal" is ambiguous. Whether it is a reference to "Dougal" the dog from the "Magic Roundabout" or just a general term of disparagement is not clear.

What is clear is that my patience with this is over. This would normally be the topic of a private PM. I have already intervened in public in this thread - something I thought would have been sufficient in itself - but apparently not so.

I have no doubt that this is a topic where members views are strongly held. And indeed I can understand that the use of such terms of disparagement are an indication of such strongly held feelings.

HOWEVER

The next report I get - and where I agree with the content of the report - I will remove the posting privileges of the one causing the report.

And No I am not closing this thread. Members will behave if they wish to continue to post.

I acknowledge that other JFK web sites are more lax on adjectival references - but not this site. We may not be the largest or the most popular JFK site but we are the Education Forum.

James.

Just to make clear the complaints by one member against another member - in this thread - appear to have validity

Since this matter has voluntarily cleared itself up nothing more is needed from the admin team.

That said, in the EF all members have the right to expect that criticism will be leveled only at the arguments and not aimed elsewhere.

James

Ray,

Changing browsers might be an idea. The screen shots I posted for Ron are exactly what I see when logged in as you.

Sorry Ron.

I'll Check what Ray is seeing

Ron,

I have entered as you on the EF.

You need to click on store - which I see on your login

By clicking on store you will see on the LHS Donations.

Click on Donations and that will bring you to another screen where you are asked whether you ant to make a donation

By doing you are then asked how much.

After that just follow the instructions.

See Screen dumps below

Thanks Michael, your donation takes the Reserved fund to £411.76

In answer to Andrej is the system now proposed then the likelihood is that the forum is safe.

I will ask Invision about bandwidth. They certainly want the forum to survive.

To date eight members have donated £207.22. Hopefully other members will also contribute.

O.K Rhett has got back to me and has confirmed that:-

a) The monthly cost of our membership is $45 per month.

b) He has generously gifted a free month so our next monthly payment is not until July 11th

Two points:-

i.) The monthly charge is based on bandwidth. Last year and early this year our bandwidth use was higher and that is why we were being charged $130 per month. You may recall sometime last year I suddenly announced that I was no longer able to make payments. I had just been informed the use of bandwidth has dramatically increased and we were to be charged $250 per month. I  fought it  and it returned to $130. So my point is our monthly charge is not stable. It depends on our bandwidth use.

2) While this conversation has been going on there have been donations - including one donation last week. Our reserve is now at $176. That means we have funds until ( and including ) September's payment.

So how does this sound. Assuming there are no further donations - though as some members have suggested - I do encourage continued donations- I do the following:-

i. I make payments from our reserved fund.

ii. When that fund gets too low I inform the membership we are out of funds.

iii. If our bandwith changes I also inform the membership what our new charge is.

iv. I will try and find a way to show the level of our reserve funds somewhere on the Forum.

Is that acceptable?

James.

I can see the advantage of a donational system. I am also concerned that if we go subscription whose who do not subscribe cannot fully take part.

At present a donational system is not a guaranteed source of funds. A subscription system does guarantee funds but members who do not subscribe will be in some form excluded.

Mark has made an interesting point. Rhett on behalf of Invision has reduced our payment to $45 per month. I believe he has also given us a freebe month, so our next payment may not be required until July 11th.

If we follow Marks suggestion and initially donate $10 by Friday that will place a resource into our funds.

If Rhett is serious and our payment is now $45 the  yearly subscription will also be lower. The resource will give me a breather to set up the subscription system and ensure that only those who have subscribed are active on the forum.

A subscription system does have a major advantage, it ensures that the forum does have a guaranteed source of funds. A donational system may not guarantee sufficient funds at all times.

But what is critical is what does the membership want to do?

I was thinking "a day.”

No, it will be a year. A month would be incredibly expensive.

I have forwarded the idea of a subscription base to Invision.

I do not yet know a precise active membership listing, but the subscription might be less than $35.

James

David,

The problem is how to create a guaranteed $130 per month. I have funded the site since we took over and I am unable to do so now

Invision are not happy were the site to expire. However they need $130 per month. The size of our membership has sometimes taken us close to the next stage which costs $230 a month. So yes you are right, with such a membership there ought to be a solution.

I do not guarantee this is the solution - or indeed is still available - but when I announced this to Rhett ( whom I most often deal with in Invision ) he suggested a special fee of $45 per month.

Now if the forum could guarantee such a sum each and every month I could go back to Rhett. I am happy to provide the payment to Invision so long as I can be assured I am recompensed.

I do not know if the offer is still open, but I do know Rgett was disappointed and might be open to such an agreement. But the point is if I am to supply payment to Invision then the subscription needs to be guaranteed.

James

Hi all,

Something has happened - that I do not wish to discuss - but I am no longer able to continue to make payment for the EF. This has nothing to do with a post last week where I asked members for further contributions.

I have already cancelled my payment agreement with Invision. Therefore it is likely that the EF will go dark by June 11th. If any member wishes to take over the subscription then please email me and I will submit your name to Invision. I am sure Invision will be happy for another member to pick up the subscription. The monthly subscription is $130 per month.

I am very sorry for the short notice and I thank you all for your support and friendship.

James.

Ron,

Thank you for trying. This donation scheme is a PayPal system. f you d not have a PayPal account that might be the problem. Are you using a Credit or debit card? You ought not to be able to donate if the source is a Credit/debit card. However I see cards are now an option.

I have just tried it and it works fine.

First Click on Store Tab

Second Click on donations

Then

1. Nominate the sum you with to donate in the field

2 Click to proceed.

3. You should be taken to your PayPal account.

4. I see that you are offered then then option of using a card. I assume it needs t be the card linked to your paypal account.

If you would like to try again can you take screen dumps of the process and if it still does not work I will send the screen dumps to Invision to determine why it is not working for you.

James

Thank you Stephanie. It is very generous of you.

I may have said this before, and if so it still bares repeating: the voluntary contributions made by members have played a major part in sustaining the life of the EF. To all who have made such contributions a very big thank you.

To those who have not yet contributed - and would like to - there is a pinned notice showing how contributions can be made. The EF would welcome any contribution you might wish to make.

One of the effects of Brexit is the difference in the exchange rate and the increasing the cost of the monthly payment. If members feel they could assist here and make a further contribution that would be really appreciated.

Aside from that, for all the contributions that members have so far made - a very big thank you.

James.

There is a map and master index - that defines where each person is positioned on the map - in Six Seconds in Dallas. I believe it is pretty accurate.

James

David Von Pein said:-
James Gordon explained to me in his 2/24/19 Private Message that even when EF members get banned, their past forum messages will stay put in the forum's archives

That is not strictly accurate. Yes I confirmed that any banned member’s postings are not immediately deleted - unless - a members insists they are removed. And that has happened a few times in the past. So all members have the right - if banned - to insist their work is also removed.

David Von Pein said:-
Even though I've had a couple of heated disagreements in the last four years with this forum's owner, James Gordon, he is a person I haven't really had all that much contact with. And he doesn't really post too many messages, which makes any contact somewhat minimal anyway

Two points:-
First:- As a moderator my position is different from that of a normal member. You will not see members of the admin team posting as frequently as normal members. There is not rule insisting that they limit their posting if becoming a member of the admin team. It appears to be one consequence of taking up an admin position.

Second:- I find discussions with you somewhat restrictive. In the discussions on the John Connally injuries - which is where my discussions with you have essentially entailed - I have found when discussions get technical (and beyond what the WC examined) you tend to disappear. If you disagree then search for the last discussion we had and you will see that I made the last response and you disappeared and did not respond thereafter.

Since Gary Murr has been generous to place his work in the public domain - at least as far as the EF is concerned - I will soon be returning to the subject so you will shortly have another chance to debate with me and lets see where that takes us.

David Von Pein said:-
I don't think The Education Forum should have a right to, in effect, tell its members what they can or cannot say at other Internet sites. That's not fair, in my view. And I do think it's an infringement on the Freedom of Speech rights of this forum's members

I am sorry I am not going to budge on this point. You are free to commend and praise whatever EF member you wish on whatever forum you wish to choose. The rule does not prohibit you doing that in any way whatsoever.

However I am gaining the opinion that you want this rule removed in order that you are free to criticise member as and whenever you wish. You want me to remove this rule in order you can freely express what you really feel about this forum and its members. I will not agree to that.

It appears you are followed quite widely so I understand that if on another forum you abuse this forum and its members I will quickly hear about it and you have been advised what will happen were I to hear such reports.

I really am unhappy posting a list of members who are banned. However I do see the issue that it creates for members. I have done a check on membership hoping that in the list I would see a field that indicated who was a banned member. From what I see that criteria is not available. It would appear `i would need to manually go through the entire 7445 listed members. I believe most of them are no longer active. I am sorry I am not plowing through that list manually.

I cannot remember why this rule came into being. However let me clarify it. The mere mentioning of the name of a member who is banned is not an offence. I believe the members of the admin team team would be unhappy if a member was posting in collaboration with a banned member.

Without searching the entire database I believe Professor Fetzer is banned as is Brian Doyle. As I recolllect it both these names have been referred to in the recent past, but - as I understand it - they have been mentioned in reference and not in collaboration. As of todays elaboration of this rule, to mention in a post a banned member is not an offence.

Regarding original research, This may well have been stated at some point but I have lomg forgotten why. Again lets clarify. I believe today the members of the admin team would be concerned with Palgerism and if detected we might well contact the offending member but I believe it would only entail a gentle reminder.

James

Denis,

Sorry I had forgotten about this. Although it may cause some difficulty, I am not in favour of making such a list avaliable.

James.

When that rule was put inplace it was in response to ROKC.

What I find curious is that you want the rule removed - and it could be because is reason of origin no longer exists.

Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule I have no intention of doing so, so you can feel free to disparage fellow members - as and how you like - when outside this forum. It is clear that what you really think of fellow members is not described on the EF but instead displayed by you when outside this form. You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forum and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them.

If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain.

David,

You have complied with my instruction - and indeed an instruction it was.

I see you have not commented that I informed you that I had “discussed” with other members that they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum. Indeed I have effectively removed one member from this forum for treating you in this fashion. And you are well aware when fellow members treat you this way because you have often commented about whether the moderators will respond to the insult.

You appear to believe that this kind of disparagement is acceptable and ought not to be criticised. As you comment “In my opinion, that particular rule [ to be courteous to fellow members ] should not exist at this forum.” Well the rule does exist, and will do, so long as I am the owner of this forum. And when I am aware it has been breached I will deal with the member. If you are unable to debate and converse with fellow member in a respectful fashion then action will be taken against you.

James Gordon. 

Gary,

It is great to hear that you are making “Controlling the Past" available to members.

I have a copy of your initial draft. To members who have not read your work this is an astonishing pieve of writing. The breadth of your understanding of the JFK assassination is quite astonishing. I believe the wordage of your three volumes may exceed Bugliosi's tome, but that is not the point of comparison. We all know the details of the SBT and where the bullet is stated to have entered John Connally's body etc. Your trilogy was the first I read that ignored such cliche''s and descriptions. Your descriptions takes the reader through the detail medical descriptions of what Robert Shaw - and his team did. What I did not know till much later was that you had access to Connally's complete medical record. Aside from myself - to whom you kindly gave me a copy - I doubt anyone has got this document and ever read it.The authority of your writing is impossible to mistake. One reason for that is the thousands and thousands and thousands od pages of evidence you have both received and gone through.

Generally speaking I glamce at a writer's footnotes to see whether they are just a reference account. Yours are essential reading. In my copy, which was an early draft of your work, I believe the footnotes amount to over a thousand pages. When I first began reading your work I always had the footnote PDF up beside the Text pdf. I found it so instructive to read your footnotes along with your text. One does not compliment the other - both together are really the complete text. I learnt just as much from the footnotes as I did from the text. Indeed the footnores often explained points I might be puzzeling about the text.

And then there are the images you have accumulated. I still remember the day I began looking through them. They are mind blowing.

I have copies of all your Lancer presentation. One and three refer yo your Connally work. But the 2018 Lancer presentation - among other things - describes your work ethic. I mentioned to you that I had ordered it and you commented "well I think I lost them a bit there." I beileve that that this presentation  may refer to "Forgotten" and not the Connally work. But the point is this that you came across an individual and you dug unto who that person was. The details of the search you made are mind blowing. Essentially you used up most of your fifty minutes of your presentation. It took you around fifty minutes to describe these months of research and study. I can appreciate that the Lancer audience missed the importance of the final moments of this research. Probably tired of your research and all the details you described thiey missed the outcome. You have probably tracked down the person who supplied the Mannlicher–Carcano amunition for the assassination.

That description above describes the depth  and breadth of research that Gary has undergone. Having read the trilogy, it is impossible to come away with any other impression than this is how John Connally was wounded and this is why the SBT is nonsense.

I look forward to dowloading an updated copy of your work.

James.

David,

You are  wrong This image is from "With Malice" SE