Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Colby locked topic...why?


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Peter asks many relevant questions. Colby owes us answers.

Peter was not yet a forum member when other researchers traced his

computer to a Brazilian government site devoted to "truthful information

on the internet"; perhaps those threads are archived. After this govt

connection was exposed, Colby laid low for a long time, till it blew over.

He joined here when I first posted research on the Apollo program,

along with three or four others, mostly from the Bad Astronomy website.

He then branched out into 911 and JFK...always supporting the official

govt stories. I once did a study of his postings over a short period of

time, and his numerous postings were at all hours of the day and

night, citing numerous other website references. It seemed to me

that given the mass of information he cited, someone had to be

supplying him with packaged "research." Merely to read and reply to

postings, he was taking most of every day, leaving no time for work

or sleep.

Others may respond here, since Kathy has blocked Peter's thread.

That is...till she blocks this one too.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peter asks many relevant questions. Colby owes us answers.

Peter's questions weren't relevant they were obnoxious provocation I was hoping to respond anyway but a moderator saw fit to lock it

*

Peter was not yet a forum member when other researchers traced his

computer to a Brazilian government site devoted to "truthful information

on the internet"; perhaps those threads are archived.

Actually my computer was tracked to a Brazilian ISP (Telemar)which in turn is registered to the semi-governmental body (most of its members are from the private sector) that registers all Brazilian ISP's. There is nothing on the body's website about it being devoted to "truthful information on the internet". The president of Brazil is a leftist who's not very fond of Bush.

*

After this govt connection was exposed, Colby laid low for a long time, till it blew over.

No I kept posting normally

Any one wishing to verify who is telling the truth about Jack’s claims above (marked with an *) and who is lying (or misinformed) can do so on this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8083

He joined here when I first posted research on the Apollo program, along with three or four others, mostly from the Bad Astronomy website.

Actually if you check my post history you'll see that I came here to debate Fetzer about the Wellstone crash after Craig started a thread on the subject. This followed Fetzer disappearing from another forum that Craig, Tink and I were members of. I have never been a member of BAUT.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...hl=&st=1800

He then branched out into 911 and JFK...always supporting the official govt stories.

I've said repeatedly I think there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK I did dispute stupid theories that the Z-film had been altered.

I once did a study of his postings over a short period of

time, and his numerous postings were at all hours of the day and

night, citing numerous other website references. It seemed to me

that given the mass of information he cited, someone had to be

supplying him with packaged "research." Merely to read and reply to

postings, he was taking most of every day, leaving no time for work

or sleep.

LOL - Yes you are infamous for your nonsensical "time-motion studies" did it ever occur to you that I might simply work faster than you can?

I was not one of the people who complained about the thread I replied to Peter's crap here

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2510

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends,

I'm not comfortable with the efforts to silence Messrs. Colby and Gratz.

Are they and their posts fair game for our best efforts at analysis? Absolutely.

Are our suspicions regarding their origins and intentions well founded? I have every reason to believe so.

By all means let's hold their feet to the fire.

If they turn out to be agents provacateurs, then we'll deal with them appropriately.

But they won't be gagged in my name.

So there's no mistake: I find their respective intellects to be unimpressive and their motives to be as suspect as they are transparent. Yet I have no choice but to defend to the death their shared right to express themselves.

As negative templates, they are invaluable.

They do us no harm.

Post away, my boys.

Charles Drago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

They do us no harm.

...

Yeah yeah you're a prince I get it.

But you should say "they do ME no harm."

IMO non-stop aggravation is harm.

I don't particularly care because I use my "ignore" option for anyone like that.

But it is tiresome nonetheless, and this is a moderated forum, and I think it's reasonable to wonder out loud why some people get away with so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comfortable with the efforts to silence Messrs. Colby and Gratz.

Charles, who is trying to do that?

I assume he's talking about this post of mine Mike, #81:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=115566

I said:

"I don't understand why someone who is only here to heckle is allowed to remain on the forum.

He seems to be the only forum member who is not expected to comply with the rules."

I think it's reasonable and accurate to describe what I said as an attempt to silence someone.

And it's because I think Gratz makes every thread about him instead of about the topic, and I think it's absurd and disruptive, and I don't think he's here in good faith to advance the research.

But I've said my piece so I'm done with the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for the love of....

I said in the post I put on the original thread that I locked (that lock resulted from complaint) to wait for another moderator to see what we need to do---I am still waiting to hear from one.

Of course, true to form, we now have another thread about the other thread.

I am not going to lock this one.

I don't know why the initial post on the first thread couldn't have been put into the thread that upset the person who started the topic.

I think the reason this is done is it is sort of a public flogging. Having been a victim of that as well, I don't care what one did, I would never, ever do that to anyone.

That is about the nicest way I can say what I'm thinking.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum rule,

(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.

I don't think it is appropriate to start a thread questioning the motivations of a forum member. The forum rule states that we must concentrate on what is being said, not the personality of the poster. I think that this is mainly a guideline for keeping the level of debate above personal disagreements and keeping it on topic.

It benefits us all to keep the debate this way. Feel free to ask members questions via private message, but the forum should be for discussing issues. This is in everyones interest.

I hope this doesn't seem authortarian, but this is a forum for te discussion of history and politics.

All the best,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum rule,

(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.

I don't think it is appropriate to start a thread questioning the motivations of a forum member. The forum rule states that we must concentrate on what is being said, not the personality of the poster. I think that this is mainly a guideline for keeping the level of debate above personal disagreements and keeping it on topic.

...

How does this apply to the thread John S. started about Tim Gratz John?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10672

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that many find certain persons more than slightly annoying - and not for the content of their posts, but the methodology, more often than not.

I did not find this question 'funny' nor 'innocent', despite its 'chummy' tone. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=115848

The substances in question are considered as illegal drugs and I found it an very chummy attempt at entrapement.

I could [but would rather not waste the time] cutting and pasting and finding all the attacks made on my posts and me by the same person. On the Guernica thread, this person had already been answered once about why I thought it was a false-flag operation, but decided to pester me again about it. One of many such.....designed not to enlighten, but to enflame, I believe....

I further object that the same person has posted on my biography and would ask that his post on my biography be removed or moved. He is not entitled [nor as far as I'm concerned welcome] to add, subtract or try to discredit my biography.

To John G. I'm glad you can remain Buddha-like and always ignore the antics of others. I lost all I once owned, all my money, and more - and came near to non survival for a long time due to the actions of some provacateurs, and am more sensitive than others perhaps, when I sense the presence of one constantly trolling behind my posts.

Hi Peter,

I can appreciate that, very much. I'm just trying to call it as I see it. I don't have any beef with anyone on the forum, despite what I may think of their views.

What I am trying to convey is that this is as much for you as it is for Len and the debate on the forum. We have a lot of people that read the forum who are not necessarily members, and I just want to make it readible to them too.

It's difficult to make calls on these kind of things, but I received a few complaints about this and I'm just following the guidelines.

Hi Myra,

You'll have to take that up with John S, I am but a humble moderator.

I'm sorry to those that feel that this discussion has been stymied.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum rule,

(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.

I don't think it is appropriate to start a thread questioning the motivations of a forum member. The forum rule states that we must concentrate on what is being said, not the personality of the poster. I think that this is mainly a guideline for keeping the level of debate above personal disagreements and keeping it on topic.

It benefits us all to keep the debate this way. Feel free to ask members questions via private message, but the forum should be for discussing issues. This is in everyones interest.

I hope this doesn't seem authortarian, but this is a forum for te discussion of history and politics.

All the best,

John

I agree with this post John, but I would just make a few brief observations:

1. The second sentence of rule 4 states "nor should reference be made to their abilities as researchers". Well Messrs Gratz and Colby, especially Gratz, disregard this part of that rule all the time. I'm tired of Tim regularly denigrating those with whom he disagrees. If you haven't read Trento, Bugliosi et al, Tim issues a rude dismissal, often claiming you are impeding REAL researchers from making progress in the case. Tim's pursuit of Myra Bronstein after Myra started a thread on JFK's alienation of big business in 1962, resulting in the former's bitter public fued with US steel manufacturers, is a case in point. Tim's blatant misrepresentation of the motivation for starting this thread should have been noted by moderators, imo. It was never claimed that this was the sole reason for JFK's assassination, rather that it could have been one of the factors contributing towards JFK's isolation from the power elite. A reasonable assertion, imo.

2. Len Colby claims he believes there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, yet never posts anything in support of this. Moreover, Len then claims that he is not really interested in the JFK assassination, his only interest being to argue bitterly with those who claim the film and photographic record have been altered. There's an incrongruity here, which appears to puzzle those researchers dedicated to solving the JFK case, including me. Further, Len spends most of his time on the political conspiracy threads defending the official stories fed to us by the mainstream media and, at times, rudely questioning the sanity of those who disagree. I'm often amazed at the speed with which Len becomes expert on a diverse range of controversial topics--always coming down on the side of officialdom. Of course, Len would probably reply that those who struggle to match his incredible feats are inadequate or worse. I'm afraid I must question the motives of a person who openly admits he believes JFK was a victim of conspiracy, yet displays no zeal in pursuit of this issue, which I believe is the most significant unsolved crime in modern history. For me, Len's stated position on JFK, the Bush regime's corruption and the global neocon agenda is incompatible with his apparent role on this Forum i.e. fearless defender of the status quo and official line. I'm only human and something smells very bad here. I believe Peter Lemkin's questions to Len were perfectly justified--a manifestation of the confusion felt among those concerned about a range of vital issues as to what Len Colby's real purpose here is.

3. Despite all this, I agree (once more) with Charles Drago that Gratz and Colby should not be banned. This only makes them martyrs, and I don't like the idea of banning dissenters anyway. However, I think they owe the Forum an explanation as to what exactly they are trying to achieve by their ubiquitous presence here. They might also want to modify their hectoring, inquisatorial style if they desire to engage in rational debate. I'm bloody sick of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...