Jack White Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 This morning I logged on. I saw a misleading message I wanted to reply to. I spent ten minutes writing a reply. I posted it. I got a message saying YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. My message was lost, and I was required to log in again. The purpose of this is unclear to me. It stinks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 This morning I logged on. I saw a misleading message I wanted to reply to.I spent ten minutes writing a reply. I posted it. I got a message saying YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. My message was lost, and I was required to log in again. The purpose of this is unclear to me. It stinks. Jack Jack, See the 'Moderator Actions' thread, stickied at the top. John has placed you on moderation. That means a moderator must approve each of your posts. I am not sure what you see when you are on moderation and post a message, but that "not authorized" message may be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) This morning I logged on. I saw a misleading message I wanted to reply to.I spent ten minutes writing a reply. I posted it. I got a message saying YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. My message was lost, and I was required to log in again. The purpose of this is unclear to me. It stinks. Jack Jack, See the 'Moderator Actions' thread, stickied at the top. John has placed you on moderation. That means a moderator must approve each of your posts. I am not sure what you see when you are on moderation and post a message, but that "not authorized" message may be it. It's a shame Jack's behaviour has led to moderation of his posts: it may have the effect of stopping him posting, which I for one don't want to see. If anything I'd like to see him opsting more often, in particular either defending or withdrawing his (mainly Apollo) claims. While I have little in common with the man, and whole-heartedly disagree with all of his photographic studies that I've analysed, the mere fact that he has the opportunity to defend his studies on this forum enriches the Apollo debate. It's a shame he doesn't take proper advantage of the democratic right offered him here by properly defending (or withdrawing) his claims, rather than just stating them. Edited October 1, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Jack ... I have also been put on moderation but I haven't seen that message , and except for two nights ago , my posts have been submitted without a problem .. I was however bumped off the forum the other night and then could not sign back in and was locked out temporarily. I'm not sure if being moderated means that our posts are read as they are written and either allowed or denied , or if they are allowed to be submitted and then deleted if a moderator sees fit to do so . I assume that the "sign in as invisivble " feature was taken off of our accounts so we could be monitored , as I haven't yet recieved an answer yet as to why that was done . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Jack ... I have also been put on moderation but I haven't seen that message , and except for two nights ago , my posts have been submitted without a problem .. I was however bumped off the forum the other night and then could not sign back in and was locked out temporarily.I'm not sure if being moderated means that our posts are read as they are written and either allowed or denied , or if they are allowed to be submitted and then deleted if a moderator sees fit to do so . I assume that the "sign in as invisivble " feature was taken off of our accounts so we could be monitored , as I haven't yet recieved an answer yet as to why that was done . Duane, To the best of my knowledge you have not been placed on moderation. I even reduced your warning level. Any log-in problems are your own, and NOTHING to do with any Forum moderation. When someone is on moderation, their posts are visible - as written - to the moderators and admins only. The mod can approve or disapprove the post as is. They can also edit the post before approving it. If so, the post appears with a note it has been edited and by whom, and when. Let me make this clear to everyone: a moderator cannot edit a post without the fact that it has been edited - and by whom - being displayed in the post. The only mod action that takes place without a record for public viewing is the deletion of a post. That is still recorded in the security log, so an admin can tell if anyone deletes a post. And, once again, no-one on this forum (including the admins) can alter a security log. The only people who might be able to do so are the people from IPB, not me, not John, not Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Now, a warning: do not make any such accusations without clear proof. If you believe there are problems, then say you are having problems and ask the staff to investigate. For instance: "All my posts are coming up with NOT ALLOWED; does this mean I am on moderation? If so, who put me on such and why, as I have not been notified of such." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Evan .. I'm not having any problems posting or logging in now ... and Kathy just PMed me explaining some of what you did ... Thanks . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) Peter ... Thank you for coming to Jack's defense here ... As usual your insight is dead on accurate ... I was going to write something very similar to what you did , just not quite as profound ... But I was afraid if I did stand up for Jack that I might be moderated or banned ... Now I really don't care , as I no longer have any interest in wasting my time on a forum where freedom of speech is not allowed and certain members are blocked from posting in their own defense ... Jack has been attacked by certain members here on a daily basis ... Every single word he writes is ridiculed with a venom that to me is not normal ... Thus , my accusation that one of his attackers might be obsessed in taking him down . Unfortunately this entire debacle has happened because Jack came to my defense and even though he may have misunderstood that I had not been banned , that is no reason to block him from posting what he wants to .... He has apologized to John Simkin for misquoting him and draging him into this , and I believe that should have been enough to correct the problem . It's very true that I have been no saint on this forum and have at times hurled insults in reply to those who have insulted me first ... but that is still no excuse for me stooping to their level and breaking the forum rules ... It is an very immature game of what I call ONE UP , and what that comes down to in the end is that whoever argues the best wins and truth ALWAYS loses . I joined this forum to discuss my favoite subject , the Apollo moon hoax ...and also to meet Jack White because I admire what he is doing in exposing the faked Apollo photography ...I also hoped by my joining that I could hopefully come to Jack's defense here , as I had been reading these threads long before I joined and saw a pattern of abuse towards him which was disgusting ... but I had no idea that my joining this forum would come to this ... That the man I admire so much would be censured for coming to my defense . I would like to post on this forum about my conspiracy beliefs, but not if means being constantly ridiculed for those beliefs ... I am tired of being insulted and then when I reply in kind , have my post comments placed on the complaints thread to be made an example of ... I consider that akin to a witch hunt and what has been done to Jack , even worse ... I have no more interest in posting on a forum where Jack is being treated so unfairly . I am requesting that Jack White have the moderation lifted from his account and be allowed once again to post without being censured . Edited October 1, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause. Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense. Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth. Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum. Who stands with me in his defense? Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 This morning I logged on. I saw a misleading message I wanted to reply to.I spent ten minutes writing a reply. I posted it. I got a message saying YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. My message was lost, and I was required to log in again. The purpose of this is unclear to me. It stinks. Jack No purpose and no stink This is precisely the message a person gets when attempting to reply to a message when not logged in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) To Whom It May Concern:Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause. Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense. Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth. Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum. Who stands with me in his defense? Charles Drago Not me. Jack has been shown time and time again to post blatant mis-information and outright dis-information. Talk about an agent provocateur. Of course understanding this requires people who are intellectually honest. Do you qualify Drago? Edited October 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Not me. Jack has been shown time and time again to post blatant mis-information and outright dis-information. Talk about an agent provocateur. Of course understanding this requires people who are intellectually honest. Do you qualify Drago? Man, what stinks in here? Somebody crack a window! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Not me. Jack has been shown time and time again to post blatant mis-information and outright dis-information. Talk about an agent provocateur. Of course understanding this requires people who are intellectually honest. Do you qualify Drago? Man, what stinks in here? Somebody crack a window! Translated from dragospeak, No, I do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Fellow members, I am an advocate for the right to freedom of speech and I, too have been on moderation until I agreed that there were certain lines concerning forum rules that we are not to cross. Many times I will still walk up to the line and look over it, but I try to have enough sense to know when enough is enough. I could go back and find some examples if need be, but as I recall - Jack has gone on to still use swear words and has called people a xxxx and in one post that I seem to recall ... Jack basically said that he wasn't about to not say what he wanted to. Do I think that the moderation thing goes a little overboard when it comes to how we address another members post - maybe? But at the same time this forum is being used by under-aged students and when it gets to where any of us feel that we are more important than the memory of JFK or rights to the students not to have to read profanities and such that accompanies them, then it is time to start considering starting one's own forum where a person needs to be over 18 to join it. And as far as what moderation is ... I was under the understanding that Jack can post, but before his message goes onto the forum - it is checked to insure he has followed the forum rules and guidelines. Sometimes all it takes is the rewording of a phrase to be accepted and still got your point across. I'm sure if Jack would work with the moderators ... his moderated status could be lifted. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Peter: Thank you for an excellent post and also a reminder that we can all fall victim to posting a sharp response, when perhaps a better notion is to sleep on what is preceived as a personal attack. (It happened to me just yesterday, with someone I had considered a friend). I broke my own "rule" of refusing to respond in anger, even when feeling attacked personally. I am reminded today, as you point out how close we are to yet another war, that we who care deeply about the Kennedy assassination and what has happened to our country since have to cease this terrible fueding. We all have our opinions as to what may have happened that day, but we here are really closer in agreement than we are in our disagreement, (with the notable exception of the LNs who post here). Dawn . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts