Mark Knight

I like the "water cooler" concept. Now, may "cooler heads" prevail here.

I like the "water cooler" concept. Now, may "cooler heads" prevail here.

1.) In general, no public announcement is made when a forum member has had their posting privileges suspended. And that includes the mods/administrators. So you actually have no clue whether any mods, administrators, or any other members have had their posting privileges suspended or not -- be it for a day, a week, or whatever length -- without checking on that member's profile while the suspension is in force. 2.) "Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website." Brushing up on what is stated in USC Section 230 might enlighten you as to what liabilities a forum such as this does and DOES NOT have for USER-posted comments. While the US Congress is discussing whether or not to change Section 230, until or unless they do, those who post here are legally liable for the content of their comments to a MUCH greater degree than the forum itself.

Ben, This topic has been moved to the Political Discussions area of the Education Forum, where it belongs. I have begun a Biden Discussion thread...in the Political Discussions area of the EF, where it also belongs. BOTH are now linked and pinned at the top of the JFK Assassination Discussion forum, in order to direct members to the appropriate areas. And you were unable to send me a message because my inbox is full, NOT because I am refusing messages. I have no control over who or how often the inbox gets filled. I am not notified when it's full unless someone mentions attempting to send me a message that wouldn't go through...as you did. Personally, I don't give a damn who anyone voted for. But I posted the Biden Discussion Link in order to demonstrate my [and the other administrators'] commitment to keeping the JFK assassination as nonpartisan as possible. If we continue the partisan bickering on the JFK assassination forum, how will that serve the purpose of exposing the truth? In all honesty, it won't. So that content has been moved.

Since there have been more Trump discussions begun on the JFK Assassination Discussion board, for the moment I am moving them all to this particular thread so we can lock our "signpost" thread directing you to the Trump discussions.

I have begun this Biden discussion thread because there has been a request for one on the JFK Assassination Forum. Since Biden's presidency is only peripherally connected to the JFK assassination, via the JFK Records Act, any discussion of Biden's presidency belongs HERE, in the Political Discussions area of The Education Forum. Ladies and gentlemen, you have your spot. Fire away!

Ben: Other than the JFK Records Act, Biden has ZERO connection to the JFK assassination. If you wish to discuss current politics. you are MORE than welcome to start a Biden discussion thread...which will then be moved, like the "56 years" thread, to the Political Discussions part of The Education Forum, where it belongs. It's still PART of The Education Forum, it's just not part of the JFK Assassination Discussion. IT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. Political Debates - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) Bookmark that link. Because I'm pretty sure that's where this thread, which is ONLY supposed to show links to where the Trump discussion threads are to be found, will end up. We welcome people of every political persuasion to discuss the JFK assassination here. But we have areas to discuss other political issues in OTHER parts of The Education Forum. I don't give a damn if you're pro-or anti- Biden, pro- or anti- Trump, or a thousand other political persuasions. But the JFK Assassination Discussion forum is the place to discuss the JFK assassination ONLY. WE PROVIDE OTHER DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR THOSE OTHER TOPICS. USE THEM. Here's the MAIN link to The Education Forum: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) (I'd wager you've NEVER been there before...it's a big house, check out the other rooms.)

I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie. Whether he's related to them or not. —————————————————- Does the above sound ok? Look, we’ve all said things that in hind sight may have been regrettable. What it looks like is that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case, as it may be argued that there is a conflict of interests or a conscious or unconscious bias present. I don’t know if all moderators are fiercely loyal Democrats but, it certainly seems like a majority, Kathy has been quite pointed at times too IMO (not impartial). Is this analogous to having an white jury try Emmett Till? It doesn’t seem fair at all. I would think differently if others had been held to account for doing the same things as Matthew. 4) Makes sense. 5) It may be a consensus but, it doesn’t make it better if it looks like a witch-hunt. There is a moral responsibility to make a fair decision. The thread was seen to be deteriorating for days and nothing was done. People on one side of the debate were defamed (mostly, not exclusively), all sorts of heinous terms were used or insinuated, the worst insults and then there was some retaliation. At any point in time mods could have said; enough us enough, any ad hominem directly or indirectly will be a weeks ban, no matter how big or small, and it would have diffused the situation IMO. It would have been much quicker to fire out 6-8 copy paste messages to offenders. Instead it was allowed to rattle on, with tensions building. Was what Matthew did worse than being called fascist, far-right, anti-semitic, and whatever else? There are no grounds for this. I am on the left and libertarian, but, I have also been much maligned and called some of these things. I have retaliated as sometimes its been the only way to stop the culprits and put them in retreat. It shouldn’t be that way if we desire a decent discourse. Yes, we are all human and we often fail to live up to our high ideals. Democrats are supposed to have much higher ideals than Republicans (or at least I was led to believe), the party of FDR and JFK. Would either of those two be banning Matthew right now with no explanation or forewarning? Would they choose to censor? 6) I think moving the thread was the right thing to do. I think the Trump thread at the top should also be moved. In conclusion, I would ask you guys to review your own decision. As I think standards/criteria haven’t been met. I think we have to demonstrate them if we are to justify action against an ideological enemy. Of course that’s just my opinion, you can do as you wish, its your prerogative. At least in my eyes this doesn’t seem fair or equitable. We can all do better. Chris ——————————————— If you guys are justified as per your own rules, why are you hiding from a free and open dialogue on the matter? Why are you failing to justify your positions? From Terms Of Forum Use, posted in 2014: "Suspension of members, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum." This is not some newly-concocted rule. Nor is it hidden from Forum members, as it's pinned to the opening page of the JFK Assassination Forum. I'm simply pointing that out.

To find the last page in this thread...click on the double arrows following the page numbers at the top of the thread. Also, I want to remind you that this link from the JFK Assassination forum will expire after 30 days. So you may want to bookmark the link once you come to the "56 years" thread.

Mr. Cotter, I will step in for Mr. Bulman and explain "precisely what was wrong" with the comments he cited. In the pinned topic MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, administrator James Gordon posted the following: "In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated." This is NOT some new rule. This post dates back to 2015. And it covers what you did twice with a word beginning with "f" and again with a word beginning with "p". [I won't repost the words, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to call me a hypocrite for demonstrating the offensive behaviour in order to point out examples of the offensive behaviour.] I would suggest you take a couple of moments to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules. The Education Forum is NOT ROKC. The administrators, though we are human, are attempting to continue the standards established by our predecessor, John Simkin. References: MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

I was 9 years old. My family was having a late Sunday lunch at our home in Indiana when we saw Ruby shoot Oswald live. NBC's Tom Pettit was incredulous. He couldn't believe what he just saw. [Dad preferred NBC News to CBS News. Our local ABC network station was on Channel 32, and we didn't have a UHF converter.] My dad told us, "Remember this moment. You just saw history unfold in front of you." Later, Dad said, "It looks to me like somebody wanted this Oswald guy silenced. Wonder what he might have said in court that "somebody" didn't want to come out?" And I have been a student of the JFK assassination since that weekend.

There are a few points I'd like to make here. 1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules. 2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice. 3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing. 4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can. 5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time. 6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

fel·low trav·el·er [ˈˌfelō ˈtrav(ə)lər] NOUN fellow travellers (plural noun) a person who is not a member of a particular group or political party (especially the Communist Party), but who sympathizes with the group's aims and policies: "he was certainly a fellow traveller—in the political context of the Thirties this was unremarkable" I didn't make up this definition. Fellow traveler Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster From Wikipedia: "In U.S. politics, during the 1940s and the 1950s, the term fellow traveller was a pejorative term for a person who was philosophically sympathetic to Communism, yet was not a formal, "card-carrying member" of the Communist Party USA. In political discourse, the term fellow traveler was applied to intellectuals, academics, and politicians who lent their names and prestige to Communist front organizations." I didn't make up this Wikipedia entry, either. It is PLAINLY STATED that this "...was a pejorative term..." Which makes it an insult. Which means thou protesteth too much, without doing the requisite research.

Criticisms can be respectful of the poster while disputing the veracity of their claims. Calling the people who make these posts "whackos," "nutjobs," "cretins," "subhuman," "fellow travellers" [a term that harkens back to the "Red Scare" days of the 1950s, if I'm not mistaken], and other insulting names IS an ad hominem attack. Disputing the truth of a source is NOT an attack on the poster. And this forum does not intend to operate on the principle of "an eye for an eye." If you are a victim of an ad hominem, that does NOT give you license to resort to the same tactic. This is made clear in the forum rules of behavior. Anyone who refuses to abide by those rules can face discipline...or they can choose to leave of their own accord. Moderators cannot be on every thread 24/7. That's why the new rule was implemented under which a member can request another member to remove an offensive comment. Because the moderators and administrators have lives away from this forum, and away from the entire internet, and only drop in from time to time, the "report to moderator" function won't always bring about an immediate response. "...and we are all mortal." None of us is perfect. The mods and admins try to do the best they can, with the information that they have. There are times in which some reports are discussed among mods and admins to decide upon the proper course of action. While a course of action may have the name of only one of them, it's likely that a majority of them, possibly even in unanimity, decided on the course of action that is visible. Think about these things. It's generally a thankless job, so a thread such as this actually thanking the mods and admins is quite rare.

I have never heard of Patricia Krueger, nor have I ever seen her mentioned as a witness in any books. Has anyone heard of her?

Ben, You are welcome to start another discussion on the Deep State on the Deep Politics forum here: JFK Deep Politics - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) The Education Forum has many layers. Even the JFK area has several layers besides just this discussion board: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) Like an onion, The Education Forum has many layers. It was originally set up as a resource for educators. Lots of flavors here.

There have been several ad hominem attacks posted in this thread. Understand that when someone questions the honesty of your SOURCE, that is not an attack on YOUR honesty. Therefore, no ad hominem is "required" in retaliation. I believe everyone here is aware of the forum rules. It would be GREAT if everyone here would abide by those rules. If you need a refresher, I'm sure there's a "sticky" post on the main page that will spell things out.

I returned to this thread because I was curious to see what had occurred here since my last visit. (I do have a life away from the forum, and away from the internet. That doesn't place me above ANY of the rest of you, it simply makes me different from the ones who post [seemingly] continuously.) More hostility and vitriol, for the most part. No one is changing anyone else's mind. And minds are already made up on all sides. So what does this thread accomplish, exactly? It would seem to me that it has become a garbage scow drifting toward the center of the ocean, rudderless, with the occupants on each side throwing the offal from their side toward the occupants on the other side, and the stench doesn't improve with age. I don't watch, read, or listen to MSNBC. Likewise, I don't watch or listen to FOX News. I generally get my news from Reuters, the Associated Press, and Axios. In the latest survey of which media lean to the left and the right, these three are judged among the most centrist. I don't consider Rachel Maddow to be a purveyor of "the gospel" any more than I do Tucker Carlson. I consider them both to be playing to an audience, with no level of impartiality at all. I don't like Vladimir Putin. I don't like Donald Trump. And I only voted for Biden as the lesser of two evils...which means I still voted FOR evil, even though I did so as a vote against what I considered greater evil. I'm against gutting the funding of our public schools. But I'm also against the gutting of the curriculum standards of our public schools as well. It is a sin, IMHO, to have school administrators who would lower the standards of our education system in order to "compensate" for a decreasing average level of literacy, rather than expecting an INCREASING average level of literacy by working harder [or trying new teaching techniques] to teach the students who lower the average. In the 1960s, during the JFK administration, the "space race" led to a focus [all too briefly, it seems] on math and science. Today, education experts are once again looking to improve student performance in the STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] fields. The more things change... The irony is, with the internet, we have more information at our fingertips than any previous generation in history. But it has come at a cost. We have trouble discerning what information is factual and what is garbage. And because the information IS at our fingertips, we [as the whole of mankind] feel no compulsion to LEARN any of it for ourselves. And about the Kennedy assassination...I'm beginning to feel that my generation, those of us who witnessed Jack Ruby murder Lee Oswald on a Sunday morning in Dallas, are the final few who actually give a damn about learning the truth of the events of those 48 hours in Dallas. Younger people have their own touchstones in history: the moon landing; the Challenger disaster; the 9/11 WTC attacks; and I'm sure there are others for those even younger. The JFK assassination doesn't register with most of them because it's already "ancient history" to them. So since no one wants to attempt to persuade others that they have a valid point -- most here are more than content to beat "them" over the head because they didn't side with "us" -- perhaps it's time for me to start ignoring this thread again until I get the next report for moderator intervention. Peace is a valuable commodity to me. I don't need "full spectrum domination" in my life. I don't need validation, nor do I relish confrontation. I wish no power over any man, nor do I desire others to have power over me. There was a time when I fought for what I thought was right. Now I merely fight for the freedom to escape the shouting mob from either side. I'm beginning to feel as Solomon, described as the wisest man who ever lived, did: that all mankind does, in the final analysis, is done in vain. Though some will call it "woke," I will continue to give to charities that feed the hungry and house the disadvantaged. If that becomes my legacy, it will be enough. I don't believe that "good deeds" accumulate like Green Stamps, that they can eventually be cashed in for a home in some faraway Paradise. Rather, I believe that an act that helps another is the rent we pay in this life, for the help we received from others, some of whom we may never know even existed. Carry on, ye word warriors. I wish you to eventually discover happiness, and then to dwell therein for the rest of your days.

Ben, What would be wrong with requiring Russia to withdraw to its pre-war borders prior to an armistice? After all, Russia is the aggressor in the war in Ukraine.

I believe you've captured Trump's emotional intelligence level. Age 13. What happened to trump at age 13? His family sent him off to military school. While military school is generally known for "making a man" of its male students, apparently it succeeded in making a perpetual 13-year-old of Donald J. Trump. He was "shipped off" from his home and family, and for some reason, he became disconnected from emotional growth at that point. It might explain his fixation with personal loyalty, as perhaps he feels that his parents showed him none after shipping him off to military school. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but I'm sure one would have a field day analyzing Trump.

Ben, I don't know how long you've been away from the US. But here are some FACTS: I have a mortgage on my current home. I paid off the mortgage on my previous home. NONE of my mortgage payments were tax-deductible. Mortgage INTEREST hasn't been tax deductible for YEARS. The only thing I can deduct is my property TAXES paid, and then ONLY if my total deductions exceed the "standard deduction." My total deductions have exceeded the "standard deduction" only ONE TIME in my entire 68 years of living, and that was when I was married and my wife had some very high medical expenses. So the basic premise of your mortgage vs. property tax argument is FALSE. Yet you set yourself up as some sort of "authority" on all this. Therefore, I question the basis of your alleged "authority."

Just because I [correctly] deduced that you no longer own property in the US from the fact that you advocate a property tax to fund Social Security does NOT make it an ad hominem. Ray Charles could see that connection, and he's not only blind but dead for several years now. As I pointed out, EVERY human advocates for his/her own self-interest. It's not JUST you. It's EVERYONE. When it comes to taxes, they are most successfully collected from people who HAVE the commodity being taxed. If you were to levy a tax on my yacht, my airplane, or my business, you'd collect nothing. I have no yacht, no airplane, no business. Ask anyone who thinks SOMETHING should be taxed, what they believe should be taxed FIRST. I will wager that 99.9 times out of 100, that person will suggest something that they personally do NOT own. Like yachts. Like airplanes. Like second and third homes. If pointing out that particular common foible of human nature constitutes an ad hominem, then we might as well shut down everything here and go home. Because then EVERY comment becomes an ad hominem.

What about my comment constitutes an ad hominem attack? Is it not common for people who DON'T have something [such as great wealth] to suggest we start taxing what they don't have? You may not have been in America RECENTLY, but that has been a fact for my entire 68+ years here on this Earth. People who don't own airplanes or yachts are always wanting the taxes to land on the people who have airplanes and yachts. It has ever been so, and it will always be so. I'm simply pointing out a universal truth. For you to consider that an ad hominem is not merely ridiculous, but awfully thin-skinned of you.

In 2020 I did a paper for a college course examining the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Social Security actuaries are, by law, limited to project out to a maximum of 75 years. Their conclusion was that if the cap were removed from income subject to tax for Social Security, the fund would remain solvent for as long as they are allowed to project. Others have stated that removing the cap would fund Social Security "in perpetuity." The tax RATE would never have to increase. The AGE at which recipients could begin collecting Social Security would never have to be raised. And Social Security BENEFITS would never have to be cut. The only people keeping this from occurring are those representing RICH Americans. And Ben...there would be no need for a federal property tax, which at this point doesn't exist.

Do you own property in the US? [If not, it would explain why you're a proponent of such.]