The Colby locked topic...why?

[Craig Lamson]

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

John, I'm well aware of what you say and believe you and even agree with most of what you say and the sentiment behind it. I'm not upset at you - I think you're one of our better assets on the Forum.

I think there are ways to  disagree without becoming disagreeable. Some on the Forum, in my  humble opinion, are by nature or training [i'll leave it for others to conclude] by their very style of most of their posts disagreeable and trying to be irritating, to cause the other poster to react in an emotional way, get upset and thus make them look the 'lesser' and discredited. I usually ignore these and have usually chosen not to respond in any kind, but sometimes, my limit is reached and I react - as was their original plan, methinks. I will now go into my lotus position and try to rise above this. Ommmm

mmmmmmmmm

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

Perhaps you can't even begin to count them because they never happened. Talk about one who shouldn't speak on this topic.....only wish they'd allow a poll of who agrees with your characterization, Mr Politeness.

I'm well aware of my postings and the contents, and the times I've been called on it. You on the other hand seem a might forgetful. Shall I make you eat your words? Its time your ilk gets call upon the carpet by the mods. The double standard here is shameful.

[Len Colby]

PETER WROTE:

"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."

Yes most people don’t like having their pet notions challenged.

"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."

Come on Peter, I think the statue of limitations has passed I asked you if you dropped acid in the 60’s. In any case it was legal until Oct. 66 anyway. Clinton admitted to smoking pot and was elected president twice. Note that I admitted to using it For the record I've also smoked pot, hash and opium and done coke, mushrooms and speed. I was offered a hallucinogen that makes you puke by Native Brazilians but passed.

"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."

I question the content your and other peoples posts more than I do the person, but after having it insinuated that I’m here for ulterior motives sometimes I respond in kind. Perhaps you could list a representative sample of my offending posts

"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."

No you never answered that question, go ahead prove me wrong, point out where you answered it.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9864

"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."

Tit for tat pot don’t call the kettle black. I objected to you starting the thread

MARK WROTE:

“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.”

Perhaps you can point out numerous instances when I’ve done so when I wasn’t replying to a similar jibe.

“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.”

Most of the issues I debate are relatively recent (i.e. they happened in the last 10 years) JFK was assassinated before I was born. It’s my impression that though perhaps some of the finer points can be elucidated it is unlikely that it will be possible to shed significantly more light on it than has been to up till now. As Josiah “Tink” Thompson (Six Seconds in Dallas) put it, trying to figure out who did it can ‘drive you crazy’. The other problem for me is the morass of often-conflicting information and the number of people who dedicated their lives to the case. I would have to do an enormous amount of research to comment intelligently on most aspects of the case so I content myself to lurk on most threads. I don’t want the above to be interpreted as a criticism of JFK researchers I admire most for their intelligence and perseverance but it’s just not for me.

I comment of the photo aspects of the case because I’m reasonably knowledgeable about photography and I admit because of my antipathy for Fetzer, who repeatedly insulted me on another forum, and my affinity for “Tink” who I ‘met’ on the same forum.

“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 defend what I consider to be the truth. I started a thread about dirty tricks by the Republicans but IIRC on Steve Turner replied. I’m relatively polite and rarely the one to ‘cast the first stone’.

“They might also want to modify their hectoring, inquisatorial style if they desire to engage in rational debate. I'm bloody sick of it.”

I’m bloody sick of being insulted or having my motives questioned but it seems to be ‘part and parcel’ of challenging people’s views here. I normally challenge what I consider to be unfound allegations with rebuttal information and/or ask people to back their claims. I don’t consider that “hectoring, inquisitorial” that’s what’s supposed to happen on forums dedicated to debating “controversial issues”. Peter’s thread however as two moderators have indicated so qualifies. I think the only person you can say I’ve been “inquisitorial” towards is Sid. Just as he has a right post his views on Hitler, Jews and the Holocaust, which are vile to me, I have my right to challenge him on them.

PETER WROTE:

"Finally, I feel these kinds of either tactless and constant postings have chased many off the Forum - many of them the best researchers / writers around, and at great loss to the Forum. This may well be a the intended end result. It also presents a picture of general dissention and lack of consensus beyond the reality to those who just drop in from the internet and don't follow the Forum regularly."

Oh my God how horrible it would be if people thought that any real debate went on here! As I pointed out in my reply to you, there are numerous forums where 9/11 etc can be discussed without opposing voices, perhaps you’d be more comfortable on one of those. If indeed anyone has left because they’ve had their POV’s challenged they are probably better off on one of those forums as well.

[Len Colby]

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

Perhaps you can't even begin to count them because they never happened. Talk about one who shouldn't speak on this topic.....only wish they'd allow a poll of who agrees with your characterization, Mr Politeness.

either you are the one uniformed or you were just shining your hob nail boots and ironing your brownshirt....more upon my return Herr Ulman

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=77728

Lamson, you hate all but money and authority...I don't even read your posts....to get out of the impending fascism I don't try to convert a fascist....you don't work here or on JFK posts toward anything...you'd just like everyone to be a couch potato, drink their beer, eat their junkfood and watch the TV circus - AND NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY OR Halliburton etc.....if this is all such bull then why are you here?!..I think because you don't think it is bull**** - and you or those who you 'salute' are worried about it.....last you'll get a direct reply from me Herr Lamson. I don't like brown as a color for shirts, nor people who don't try to make the world a better place and who worship the powerful and greed, and don't help those in need and without power....and try to turn those seeking the truth away from the scent. Heil and farewell!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=72225

[Charles Drago]

Friends -- and Others,

They're winning.

Unless ...

If we don't engage in a direct exchange, they huff and puff and choke on their own venom.

Their sounds and furies are performed to empty seats.

We have the most serious business imaginable to conduct. All of this is an immense waste of resources.

Unless ... Let us use them as the enemy attempts to use us: Listen carefully (not respectfully) and attempt to gauge by their behaviors the larger perceptions and fears and goals (of their masters).

Why not create what in political campaigns is called an "opposition research" file on these characters? Copy their posts to a thread so named -- and from which they are banned -- and invite informed analyses of the portions of the larger picture they inadvertently reveal.

For us, it's win/win.

Can we do this? Should we?

Charles Drago

Edited August 27, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I caught a snippett of something called MEGAPHONE technology that allows groups to know where oppositional rhetoric is being typed on the internet. I read it was being used by Israel against opponents of the Zionazis. Has anyone heard of this MEGAPHONE technology?

Might this in some way be related to the topic of this thread?

[Charles Drago]

A noble goal. Not easy at times after years of repeated attempts to derail, neutralize, stall and othewise thwart threads by a few. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm

The frustration, Peter, is born of the level playing field afforded to the enemies of truth.

What I'm suggesting is anything but fair and balanced. Those in a position to know the historical truth of conspiracy in the death of JFK who nonetheless wilfully deny it are nothing more or less than targets of opportunity for us. I include in this category the sappers who, in order to infiltrate our lines, falsely claim to acknowledge conspiracy.

You know who I mean: the "mob did it" and "Castro did it" squads.

And let's not forget the Geraldo Brigade: "I believe the Warren Commission got everything wrong except its conclusion," said their leader from somewhere deep within Al Capone's vault.

So ... Let's not argue with them.

Let's expose them.

Charles

Edited August 27, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I have a great deal of respect for you, and am asking with sincerity:

My responses in red.

Thank you for your kind words. I have no doubt that you are a sincere and committed person.

Why would you want them banned from a thread w/regard to their beliefs, leaving people who disagree the entitlement of posting? Is not the purpose of a public forum a back and forth debate?

I propose to ban Gratz, Colby, and Lamson (and perhaps a few others) from but a single thread: The one dedicated to analyzing their numerous comments posted freely elsewhere.

Unfair? You betcha. But this isn't a debating society. This is war.

Who is doing the "informed analysis"-- the parameters of such a thread would allow anyone to post there who wasn't "them"

Correct. Even their defenders would be welcome.

What I'm proposing is a work in progress. It may prove unmanageable. But I think such an experiment is worth the trouble.

As to your statement that "they" are winning I submit to you "they" did not start this thread, nor the one before. Their philosophy(ies) are now one of the major discussions on the PC thread. Perhaps this is what you are saying--that it should not be a personal topic, but done as a group effort, and bringing this into the limelight is not conducive to discrediting their claims.

Let me be direct: Casting light on their possible tactics and motives is precisely what the thread I'm proposing will do. And it's precisely what needs to be done.

I think that if you truly want to win, and others as well, that it would be paramount to your quest to "know your enemy". You then have his MO, and can respond or choose not to. The less he is allowed to speak, the less you learn about him.

I agree with you that a non response would stop any further progress in an discussion, but to educate others, this may not be the best way.

You're repeating my position. These characters will be free to post elsewhere, and I sincerely hope they continue to do so. What we learn of the enemy will be the subject of the proposed thread.

Remember, that this is a largely read forum, and its purpose is back and forth debate. It's not just for us, which is why it is critical for both sides to participate.

Kathy, the "side" the argues for no conspiracy is unworthy of respect beyond that which is afforded to a powerful enemy -- in this case, an enemy of truth and justice.

The conspiracy/LN question has been answered. Definitively. Or as one former Jesuit from Rhode Island might say it, "to the degree of metaphysical certitude." Need I repeat my basic position here -- one that I've just about done to death elsewhere?

Someone may counter with "but he is a disinfo agent, blah blah blah." My question is then 'Does everyone who disagrees with the person presenting the argument automatically become a disinfo agent merely because they disagree with the presenter?" You can say "No", but I say from what I've seen here, that many would says "Yes". If our opponent doesn't agree, we can attempt to discredit him personally and get a group of fellow discrediters behind us, and actually, I ask you---who really looks bad when this occurs?

I guess I do have to offer it again: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. How would you propose to deal with such people?

Hope this helps.

Charles

Edited August 27, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

"I do relate to your sentiments on it being a War......but one we are forced to wage on debating teams."

Peter: No, no, a thousand times NO!

Who forces us to debate that which is known to be factual?

Only the ignoramus and the criminal.

NO MORE CONSPIRACY DEBATE.

Conspiracy education? By all means. But read aloud:

NO MORE CONSPIRACY DEBATE.

Because for the conspirators, DEBATE EQUALS VICTORY.

Charles

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

Royalty?

Me???

I know we're concerned about the same subjects, but really ...

Let's not allow Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to pit us against each other.

If we do, they win.

If we won't, they're dead.

Prince Charles

Let's dump the title Charles.

You're a far better person that the actual Prince Charles so it doesn't do you justice.

[Charles Drago]

Myra,

Royalty?

Me???

I know we're concerned about the same subjects, but really ...

Let's not allow Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to pit us against each other.

If we do, they win.

If we won't, they're dead.

Prince Charles

Let's dump the title Charles.

You're a far better person that the actual Prince Charles so it doesn't do you justice.

Lady Myra,

You are welcome at court day and (k)night.

Just Plain C.D.

[Charles Drago]

'I guess I do have to offer it again: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. How would you propose to deal with such people?"

I am a CT as well. I love(d) President Kennedy, and even thinking about him and what he represented, moves me to tears. Our loss, as a nation, and further of the entire world, of the influence and thoughts of this great man carries on to today, and it is heartbreaking to think what we could've been... What a loss!!!

And yes, I want it solved....

BUT

I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.

For "us" to be able to create a thread that "they" are banned from, in all fairness, it would be essential, for "them" to create a thread "we" are banned from.

Kathy,

We're at an impasse.

"Fairness" in this case is unwarranted.

All is fair in love and war.

Charles

[Myra Bronstein]

Bravo, Mark! Perfectly stated!

Jack

Bravo, Jack! Perfectly stated!

(And Mark. )

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

I know you can't count them Craig, but can you give at least one example to back up your assertion?

[Myra Bronstein]

Friends -- and Others,

They're winning.

Unless ...

If we don't engage in a direct exchange, they huff and puff and choke on their own venom.

Their sounds and furies are performed to empty seats.

We have the most serious business imaginable to conduct. All of this is an immense waste of resources.

Unless ... Let us use them as the enemy attempts to use us: Listen carefully (not respectfully) and attempt to gauge by their behaviors the larger perceptions and fears and goals (of their masters).

Why not create what in political campaigns is called an "opposition research" file on these characters? Copy their posts to a thread so named -- and from which they are banned -- and invite informed analyses of the portions of the larger picture they inadvertently reveal.

For us, it's win/win.

Can we do this? Should we?

Charles Drago

Do it; take the initiative.

And I appreciate the fact that you're focused on solutions.

[Myra Bronstein]

PETER WROTE:

"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."

I agree, Peter, that attacking someone's bio is over the line.

I consider it harassment.

Do the mods agree?

And from what I've seen Len's posts fall into one of two categories:

1) Demanding citation on every word no matter how casual or irrelevant.

2) Rejecting the citation as insufficiently authoritative.

He could automate his posts to accomplish the same thing.

Once "authoritative" citations are provided he goes invisible. I see no evolution of perspective or incorporation of new information into his framework of beliefs or attempt at meeting of minds or processing of new information.

I just see hectoring, with absolutely no positive contribution to the discussion or research on the given topic.