In Praise -- and Defense -- of Jack White

[John Simkin]

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

This is of course not true. It is especially ironic that it was posted on a forum that banned me from posting because I did not follow the “official” line. The whole purpose of Andy and myself setting up this forum was to allow freedom of speech (both Andy and myself were removed from a so-called education forum because the moderators disliked our political views).

We have both have done everything we can to allow everyone freedom expression. We have never attempted to censor anyone for what they have said. The only problem is that some members insist on making false statement or abusive comments about other members. Although the people who do this is in a very small minority (for some reason, they all appear to be very interested in photographic evidence about past events), attempting to persuade them to be courteous is a very time-consuming job. In fact, it was clear that they were completely unwilling to behave. In fact, it seemed that was the way they got their fun.

A few months ago I asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. I accepted the six who volunteered: John Geraghty, Stephen Turner, Gary Loughran, Antti Hynonen, Evan Burton and Kathy Beckett. I did so because all of them had never been accused of making abusive comments. They behaved in the way that I wanted all members to behave. In my opinion they have done a great job. In fact, I am amazed they have been willing to do this thankless task.

In return, I am committed to giving them my full support. I do not read the threads that cause all the trouble on this forum. I am not terribly interested in the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination and the moon landings. I rely on the moderators to keep me informed about the abusive comments people make. They usually deal with this by editing out the worst examples of personal abusive. However, recently, Jack White has started several threads that have been completely untrue. It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense. While I agree we should be more generous in our attitudes towards our senior citizens, there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. I therefore accepted Evan’s suggestion that Jack should have his posts moderated for a period. This does not mean that Jack is being censored. Nor does it mean that Evan is Jack’s parole officer. Jack posts in the normal way. Any moderator or administrator reads the posts and if they are not abusive, they are made visible.

The idea that “forum has been taken over by Lamson, Burton and Colby” is ridiculous. Only one is a moderator and anyone who reads the “political conspiracies” section will no that I rarely agree with Craig and Len about anything. However, they always behave in a courteous manner and have never needed to be put on moderation.

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 the truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum.

Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum.

Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

[Tim Gratz]

Peter:

We are getting into a quagmire.

Now where have we heard THAT before?

As for me, I see light at the end of the tunnel!

[Miles Scull]

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

This is of course not true. It is especially ironic that it was posted on a forum that banned me from posting because I did not follow the “official” line. The whole purpose of Andy and myself setting up this forum was to allow freedom of speech (both Andy and myself were removed from a so-called education forum because the moderators disliked our political views).

We have both have done everything we can to allow everyone freedom expression. We have never attempted to censor anyone for what they have said. The only problem is that some members insist on making false statement or abusive comments about other members. Although the people who do this is in a very small minority (for some reason, they all appear to be very interested in photographic evidence about past events), attempting to persuade them to be courteous is a very time-consuming job. In fact, it was clear that they were completely unwilling to behave. In fact, it seemed that was the way they got their fun.

A few months ago I asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. I accepted the six who volunteered: John Geraghty, Stephen Turner, Gary Loughran, Antti Hynonen, Evan Burton and Kathy Beckett. I did so because all of them had never been accused of making abusive comments. They behaved in the way that I wanted all members to behave. In my opinion they have done a great job. In fact, I am amazed they have been willing to do this thankless task.

In return, I am committed to giving them my full support. I do not read the threads that cause all the trouble on this forum. I am not terribly interested in the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination and the moon landings. I rely on the moderators to keep me informed about the abusive comments people make. They usually deal with this by editing out the worst examples of personal abusive. However, recently, Jack White has started several threads that have been completely untrue. It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense. While I agree we should be more generous in our attitudes towards our senior citizens, there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. I therefore accepted Evan’s suggestion that Jack should have his posts moderated for a period. This does not mean that Jack is being censored. Nor does it mean that Evan is Jack’s parole officer. Jack posts in the normal way. Any moderator or administrator reads the posts and if they are not abusive, they are made visible.

The idea that “forum has been taken over by Lamson, Burton and Colby” is ridiculous. Only one is a moderator and anyone who reads the “political conspiracies” section will no that I rarely agree with Craig and Len about anything. However, they always behave in a courteous manner and have never needed to be put on moderation.

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 the truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum.

Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum.

Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

John,

Please accept my thanks for maintaining this excellent forum at your own personal expense under sometime trying conditions.

If you will pardon me for being succinct, I will give my opinion.

All that needs to be done is that the moderators must simply & rigorously & equably enforce forum rule number 4.

Some moderators do not do so firmly and/or equably.

(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.

Those members who violate this rule should be placed first on temporary monitoring & then, with no improvement, they should be placed on permanent monitoring or banishment.

It is easy for a moderator to spot a member who is demeaning the motivations of other members.

Forum Rule Number 4 is quite clear & straight forward.

If in future I or you or Jack White or Bill Miller or anyone violate rule # 4, then let the great axe fall.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Passions are getting too high here.

While we all fight each other, they smoke their cigars, grinning, grinning, grinning and win.

Let’s be done with this in-fighting.

Let's get back to doing what we all do best. Put them under pressure ----- not us!

David

[Evan Burton]

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval first."

NOT TRUE.

ANY moderator - repeat - ANY MODERATOR can approve Jack's posts.

If it will please the masses, I will refrain from either approving or rejecting Jack's posts. Other moderators can be pulled from the JFK section and make those decisions. I care not a wit.

What I do care about is having false accusations continuously made against me, and the person not even trying to offer an apology for false accusations when they have been proven wrong.

Can I please state: if you haven't read the reasons for the moderation, please do so. Read all the accusations against me, and the replies from John and Andy.

Edited to add: After reading the remarks about Rule (iv) I am quite happy to apply it - to the letter. It has been mentioned here, though, that people are adults and should not be castigated for the occasional barbed remark. I happen to agree - but if people would like the rule applied universally and without consideration, I am happy to do it. First violation - warning. Second violation - penalty. I will apply this universally. I will also be subject to this same standard, from the other moderators.

Would members feel better if this happened?

Edited October 2, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

Myra thanks for drawing our attention to a post on another forum in which Jack gave a totally distorted version of what happened. I was going to say he "lied" but the more I think about it the more I think he actually believes what he says even though the truth has been explained to him. Out of curiosity could you, (or any other member of that forum) tell us the time and date of that post?

Peter wrote:

Many biographies are not …very complete

Yours is a perfect example

the banned word can be said with other words and phrases. that one Moderator used it is problmatic.

He said that Jack made "an untrue statement", he was correct, do you suggest we refrain from saying people are in error?

the moderators should not be free from moderation

AFAIK they aren't

- the whole process of moderation need sometimes to not be myopic and look at just an individual post, but a history of other's posts that might have instigated the offending post.

Oh, yes the "the devil made me do it" excuse. You tried that to explain away calling Craig a Nazi and told us to look at the thread. But when we did we saw that he had been polite to you up to that point, you then backtracked and blamed Craig politics. Curiously you said nothing about calling Steve Ulman a Nazi as well, that was similarly unprovoked. Take responsibility for your own actions.

The same goes for Jack. Evan did nothing to justify Jack's unfounded accusations apparently he didn't learn from his mistakes and continued to make new similar accusations even after previous ones had been shown to be totally false.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Len Colby

[Charles Drago]

Charles, you are free to stop posting on this forum. You are even free to urge other members to stop posting. I am all in favour of freedom of expression. It is of course the reason why this forum is so difficult to run. In fact, it is now getting very close to the point where Andy and myself have to make a decision. We no longer have the time or energy to act as referees.

1. Do we abandon our commitment to free speech and ban all those members who cause us all the problems?

2. Do we place all the troublemakers on permanent moderation?

3. Or do we close down the whole forum?

John,

Before I respond to your post, I must be certain that you are aware of the respect I harbor for your efforts here -- and for the sacrifices you make to keep the website viable.

Silence is an unacceptable response to evil. It is, however, a viable tactic in a grander strategy to defeat those forces that would make silence mandatory.

My intent in calling for a boycott of posts on the JFK Forum was to employ that tactic.

Should this Forum be closed down, the enemies of the truth will have won a considerable victory. Such a turn of events must not be permitted it to occur.

For years I have argued against the extensions of collegiality and other forms of deference to the enemy who advance in the guise of honest researchers. Not a single counter-argument to date has persuaded me to abandon this position.

The problem, of course, is how to differentiate between well-meaning commentators with whom people of good conscience can honorably disagree, and agents provocateurs who assume deep cover by playing those roles?

I have not a shard of wisdom to share in the form of a viable solution, other than this: As Louis Armstrong said about jazz, "You know it when you hear it."

Yesterday, after an enemy of the truth publicly accused me -- on your Forum -- of intellectual dishonesty, I filed a report with the moderators. In it, I made certain to note that I had no problem whatsoever with the insult; after all, I had considered the source -- one who, by the way, regularly defames Jack White with impunity. Rather, I simply asked that Forum rules be applied fairly to all posters.

Today I received a prompt and satisfying response from Antti. He expressed his agreement with my position, I take him at his word, and I consider the matter closed.

With your permission, then, I shall continue to post on this and Forum. At the same time, please know that I reserve the right to expose our enemies in suitable fashion.

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

[Guest David Guyatt]

I have minor problems with the above, though realize I have no great sway over its wording nor implementation. Some thoughts:

-many are not researchers

-many who IMO never should have been admitted to the Forum, remain ad infinitim and most of those who the Forum would be better severed by have been chased away by many of these.

- I think the motivation of the poster is imporatant when not for the persuit of the truth.

- Provacateurs - professional and amateur do exist.

- By 'taken over' in reference to some people, there is a cliche who never let a single post by certain others go unchallended, insisting on having the last post [the most read one] on a thread.

- Many biographies are not available or not very complete and most will not be looking them up, rather assuming that those selected to be on the Forum have some status worthy of being here.

- the banned word can be said with other words and phrases. that one Moderator used it is problmatic.

- the moderators should not be free from moderation

- the whole process of moderation need sometimes to not be myopic and look at just an individual post, but a history of other's posts that might have instigated the offending post.

The above are observations only. I expect they will be ignored, regrettably.

[/b][/color][/color]

I share some of your concerns too, Peter.

I likewise think the motiviation of the poster is not just important, but integral to the truth. I will have to be put in moderation regularly because I will continue to focus on that aspect whenever I feel it appropriate.

I have a problem also with "banned" words. I am a joyous user of a certain Anglo-saxon word and it wrankles not to be able to fookin' say it, sometimes. And I'll be put in moderation if I do. Fook it.

I also used the "Nazi" word -- against Craig. But I don't think he is a nazi to be perfectly fair to him. Nor a sheet wearer. Craig is just Craig in the same way that Len is just Len. I'm beginning to appreciate both of them, not for their views so much, as for just being there. How terribly boring it would be if we all agreed... We need a counter-thrust to keep us active, alert and creative. They're it. I feeel certain they need us to bounce off also.

Moderators do need to subjected to moderation in the same way the rest of us are. Being a moderator is hard and unselfish work done for free, and should be appreciated for that. But it's not a ticket to ride.

I now have to go off and scratch my gentleman bits...

David

[Charles Drago]

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

[Len Colby]

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

Once again Mr. Drago shows that he is totally intollerant of disenting views.

Edit - see my next post.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

Glad you changed your mind, Charles. The forum would've been a sadder place without you.

I thought you might enjoy the following picture which was sent to me a year or two ago.

It's especially for those who enjoy cross word puzzles...

David

PS, It just occurred to me to add the rider that my pic above is not directed at anyone here. It was sent to me as a joke (I hope!) and in that spirit is sent here.

Edited October 2, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Charles Drago]

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

Glad you changed your mind, Charles. The forum would've been a sadder place without you.

I thought you might enjoy the following picture which was sent to me a year or two ago.

It's especially for those who enjoy cross word puzzles...

David

PS, It just occurred to me to add the rider that my pic above is not directed at anyone here. It was sent to me as a joke (I hope!) and in that spirit is sent here.

Let us pray that our moderators are vertically challenged.

[Bill Miller]

Let us pray that our moderators are vertically challenged.

Charles, I really don't care one way or the other how the people who pay to have this forum wish to run their business. But I must say that if one wishes to be taken seriously, then one should follow-up on what they have said. You called for 'no more post' and since that time in this thread` alone ... you have posted four more additional times.

I read this saying not long ago that may offer some inspiration here and it goes like this ...

"Say what you mean, but mean what you say. Just don't say it mean."

Bill Miller

[Len Colby]

As Ian Fleming would have written of Lennie and the Craigster: Freddie Uncle Charlie Kate 'em!

The Other Charles

Once again Mr. Drago shows that he is totally intollerant of disenting views.

Edit - see my next post.

I apologize to the forum and especially its administrators and moderators that in a moment of anger I sunk to Drago’s level. Though responding in kind to his unprovoked attack my comments (now removed) were out of place here.

[Charles Drago]

Let us pray that our moderators are vertically challenged.

Charles, I really don't care one way or the other how the people who pay to have this forum wish to run their business. But I must say that if one wishes to be taken seriously, then one should follow-up on what they have said. You called for 'no more post' and since that time in this thread` alone ... you have posted four more additional times.

I read this saying not long ago that may offer some inspiration here and it goes like this ...

"Say what you mean, but mean what you say. Just don't say it mean."

Bill Miller

Bill,

I accept your criticism and its validity. Forgive me if this response is lame.

As I wrote in response to John:

"Silence is an unacceptable response to evil. It is, however, a viable tactic in a grander strategy to defeat those forces that would make silence mandatory.

"My intent in calling for a boycott of posts on the JFK Forum was to employ that tactic."

I remain torn on the issue: How would continued silence -- mine or yours -- move us forward? Yet how else can we support Jack?

Would not the silence sanction end up doing more harm than good? Like Clinton's anti-Saddam sanctions that resulted in nothing other than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

Melodramatic? Perhaps. But how can we justify, let alone live with, the fact that our absence from the field awards it by default to the Lamsons and Colbys?

To the degree that my "threat" has prompted valuable discussion and self-examination, it stands as a successful tactic. But again, your counter-argument resonates.

In the event that I haven't lost all credibility, permit to suggest the following: Let us continue to treat the enemy as the enemy, to refrain from collegiality and respectful language in the face of enemy action, and if the moderators don't like it, they can go stuff themselves.

If this Forum is to become an enemy stronghold, it will not be my fault or yours.

As for Jack White: He has my full support. Hasten the day that he can return, unfettered, to this Forum.

Thoughtfully,

Charles