In Praise -- and Defense -- of Jack White

[Tim Gratz]

Amen to Duke's post, as usual a voice of reason and common sense.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I think a cavieat is required. Should you choose to post messages for others, particularly those under Moderation, you will be held responsible for the content of that post. Members under moderation still enjoy full posting rights, so there is no need for anyone else to act as a go-between, as if it were a message being smuggled out of a Soviet Gulag.

[Evan Burton]

Maybe the Apollo treads deserve their own area outside of political conspiracies.

It's worth considering, but I am not sure if it is the right thing to do. If we did, then perhaps 9/11 would also deserve a separate sub-forum. I'm unsure. I do have to admit, it would help keep things on an even keel. I am fully aware that some excellent threads in the PC board get "pushed back" because of the prevalence of Apollo threads - and occasionally 9/11 threads.

Personally, I've never understood why they generate more 'heat' than anything else, apparently. I myself don't participate in them and obviously others, including at least one monitor have great interest in them. I don't even watch them, so don't know what goes on there.

The same goes for me, but with respect to JFK (and a far lesser degree, 9/11). For my part, Apollo is my bailiwick so that is where I am active.

Jack has been integral, both past and present in information, clarifications and important analyses and details from the past as well. His boiling point may be lower than some others, but he is also the focus of more attacks and provacations on the Forum than any other single person, but far, and it is done by a few regulars, so he feels that people are ganging-up on him and that makes it worse.

I understand, but we all have to play by the rules. If we were to extend some type of latitude to Jack because of his contribution to JFK research, then why should other person - who have contributed in other areas - not also receive latitude?

If Jack considers that he is being attacked, then he should report the posts that do so - like other forum members have done, and which get reported to ALL moderators / admins, not just to those who happen to read the particular thread where a grievance is aired.

The Forum has a slight bias against the offiical version of history and the events within it, I think.

Which is good, to a degree. Be skeptical. Question events... but you also have to listen to answers. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Those who are more in the 'camp' of supporting the official version of some particular event or every event often fight IMO a bit too hard to counter this mild bias of the Forum consensus, in so doing, start to raise the heat and that often breaks out into problematic angry posts. It is not easy when hold very nearly opposite views on important issues. One trick is not to respond immediately, if possible, but wait an hour or to the next day and try to weave both wisdom and humor into the reply, instead of venom. Another is to ignore, though that is often hard as the past poster 'seems' to have 'won' by not being challenged and that is why some who disagree with the thrust of thread at all cost make sure their post is always at the end of it trying to defeat and deflate the thread's premise.

Agreed to a degree. Sometimes you have to admit you are wrong. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. Sometimes, though, the onus is on someone to defend their position if they wish that position to be taken seriously. It is quite easy, though, to lose your temper and make remarks in anger that on reflection you wish you had not said.

I'd like to see Jack posting here again and both he and those who often attack him to try to cool it, more than a bit.

This is where we part our ways a little. Jack is still able to post here. As long as he conforms with the rules of the forum, his posts remain unedited. If he does break the rules, then the fact that the post is edited is visible to all.

I would say that people should 'cool it' with their replies, though. I try to do so myself, though not always with success. Some get accused as 'goading' others; should there be a rule against it? How do you determine goading? I think it is up to the people involved not to respond to goading, report posts which violate the forum rules, and take heed of moderators when they ask people to start being a little calmer with their replies. The last thing you want to do is respond to the goading; it simply brings you down to their level.

[Evan Burton]

I think a cavieat is required. Should you choose to post messages for others, particularly those under Moderation, you will be held responsible for the content of that post. Members under moderation still enjoy full posting rights, so there is no need for anyone else to act as a go-between, as if it were a message being smuggled out of a Soviet Gulag.

Well, not full posting rights - but if they conform to civility then there will be no reason to edit their posts. Since we are discussing Jack in particular, I should repeat that I am happy to let other moderators approve / disapprove Jack's posts whilst he is under moderation. I will not take part in it, so I am not censoring anything he says to suit my own wishes.

Also on a point raised by Stephen: after discussion regarding people posting Jack's replies for him, it has been decided that the poster will be responsible for the content of their posts. Saying "This is posted on behalf of John Doe.." is no immunity. If the content of the post breaks forum rules, you'll be given one warning. If you break them again, the details of the posts will be passed to John for consideration of moderation.

[John Simkin]

Sorry, I have been very busy and have been unable to follow this thread over the last couple of days.

We also have a forum owner who does not have time for all this nonsense, and has put much trust in his mods and admin, which is--IMO--totally proper and respectful of his volunteer staff even if I don't agree with all of his staff selections. Whatever, I happen to have a huge and growing appreciation for John, and for his intellect and energy and research and guidance and teaching skills.

You clearly have no respect for me at all. What you mean to say is that I am sometimes very useful to you. For example, seeking my advice on how to get your websites obtain higher-ranking in the search-engines, having me put a link to your website from my JFK index page, etc. That of course does not stop you having a go at me at the first available opportunity, as this thread shows.

John>"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."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

How friggen catty. Nasty, uncalled for, counter-productive and catty. Period.

I was explaining the arguments put forward by Jack’s defenders. They were not my opinions. You should be attacking those who have been putting forward those arguments. Even so, I cannot agree with you that their comments were “nasty, uncalled for, counter-productive and catty”.

By the way, Greg, thanks for defending me, It is nice that at least one member gives me support for what I am trying to do. I suspect other members are reluctant to criticise Myra because of her own tendency to be so unpleasant.

I think a cavieat is required. Should you choose to post messages for others, particularly those under Moderation, you will be held responsible for the content of that post. Members under moderation still enjoy full posting rights, so there is no need for anyone else to act as a go-between, as if it were a message being smuggled out of a Soviet Gulag.

Well, not full posting rights - but if they conform to civility then there will be no reason to edit their posts. Since we are discussing Jack in particular, I should repeat that I am happy to let other moderators approve / disapprove Jack's posts whilst he is under moderation. I will not take part in it, so I am not censoring anything he says to suit my own wishes.

Also on a point raised by Stephen: after discussion regarding people posting Jack's replies for him, it has been decided that the poster will be responsible for the content of their posts. Saying "This is posted on behalf of John Doe.." is no immunity. If the content of the post breaks forum rules, you'll be given one warning. If you break them again, the details of the posts will be passed to John for consideration of moderation.

Duane and Myra have already posted messages from Jack that has repeated his false accusations against the moderators. As Stephen has pointed out, people who do that have the face the consequences of this decision. If the original postings ended up with a warning from the moderator, posting these again will also receive a warning.

Also, as Stephen has pointed out, Jack still has posting rights. If he posts without abusing or lying about other members of the forum, these posts will be let through. The reason he passed these messages to Duane and Myra is he knew that because of the content they would not be made visible.

It is clear that some people are determined to fully test my belief in free speech. I am still committed to this ideal and unless you are guilty of racism, you are completely free to express any opinion you like. However, what you will not be allowed to do is to make abusive comments about other members. In future, you will get one warning only. The second time you will be placed on moderation. As someone who has shown that you cannot be trusted to behave, it will take sometime of posting via the approval of the moderator, before being taken out of moderation.

[Myra Bronstein]

Sorry, I have been very busy and have been unable to follow this thread over the last couple of days.

We also have a forum owner who does not have time for all this nonsense, and has put much trust in his mods and admin, which is--IMO--totally proper and respectful of his volunteer staff even if I don't agree with all of his staff selections. Whatever, I happen to have a huge and growing appreciation for John, and for his intellect and energy and research and guidance and teaching skills.

You clearly have no respect for me at all.

...

Wrong John. I respect you as a researcher, educator, and courageous individual willing to take on the established corrupt order.

I mistrust you in that I think you too often tend to take the low road in terms of interpersonal issues, and I think that as a forum administrator you often lack discretion. Here is precisely when my mistrust started:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry82388

Post #11, wherein you responded to allegations that you were a CIA agent (which I believe are false) as follows:

John>"I accept your point about researchers who disagree with your theories spreading rumours about you being CIA. I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA. As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed...."

My response came in post #33 in the same thread:

Myra>"The point being that I'll decide for myself what I think of people. It's insulting and suspicious to be told what to think. If John is trying to boost his own credibility by naming names, then he failed with me 'cause I don't appreciate those tactics. They're heavy handed, and frankly kinda catty, in addition to being unprofessional.

Whether it's CIA strategy (which I don't believe) or just bad judgement, it's a negative.

Now, since I've "clashed" with John will I see my name in the next edition of "rogue's gallery"?"

And that's exactly what happened. I ended up in the rogue's gallery because I openly objected to your tactic John (new to me at that point 'cause I was a new member) of attacking people openly by name on your public forum in a heavy-handed attempt to influence readers' opinions.

Since then I've openly objected to your public forum insults of Americans. And most recently I objected to your nasty public digs about Jack's age:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

John>"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."

"Old man...confused...senior citizen." My god, how condescending and callous.

THAT is why I mistrust you John. Because I think you fight dirty.

Instead of sticking with issues and behavior, you make personal attacks.

So how does that affect my respect for you? It diminishes it.

I still respect you as a researcher, educator, and courageous individual, but not as much as I'd respect you if you were all of these things in addition to being a person who treats others with respect and handles issues with discretion.

Sorry, I have been very busy and have been unable to follow this thread over the last couple of days.

We also have a forum owner who does not have time for all this nonsense, and has put much trust in his mods and admin, which is--IMO--totally proper and respectful of his volunteer staff even if I don't agree with all of his staff selections. Whatever, I happen to have a huge and growing appreciation for John, and for his intellect and energy and research and guidance and teaching skills.

...What you mean to say is that I am sometimes very useful to you. For example, seeking my advice on how to get your websites obtain higher-ranking in the search-engines, having me put a link to your website from my JFK index page, etc. That of course does not stop you having a go at me at the first available opportunity, as this thread shows.

...

We're all useful to each other John, that's the point of a forum like this which benefits from group intelligence and collaborative work. Given that we all ('cept for the trolls) have a common goal, we should be as useful as possible to each other.

A perfect example of that was when you posted info about Citizendium and urged a forum member to post an initial writeup about the assassination of President Kennedy. Within days I (with the help of my writing partner) had the writeup of the JFK murder reviewed by you and posted on Citizendium.

So, were you using members to get something done for the sake of our common goal? Of course you were. Does that stop you form "having a go" at us when you're annoyed? Of course it doesn't.

John>"I suspect other members are reluctant to criticise Myra because of her own tendency to be so unpleasant."

...

Another gratuitous dig, and an attempt to get others to pile onto the trash Myra train.

That's another of your favorite manipulative tactics John, to try to use your position as forum owner to pressure others into openly supporting you.

Here's a classic example from a classic thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...9256&st=225

John/February 11 2007>"The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence."

John/October 4 2007>"I suspect other members are reluctant to criticise Myra because of her own tendency to be so unpleasant."

Translation of February post: 'Members are expected and URGED to post in support of me and to criticize Myra.'

Translation of October post: 'Members are expected and URGED to criticize Myra.'

Common denominator of ALL of the above: John's tendency to tell members what to think of others, rather than let them decide for themselves.

I have to wonder if this tendency has been a factor in Jack's situation.

...

Also, as Stephen has pointed out, Jack still has posting rights. If he posts without abusing or lying about other members of the forum, these posts will be let through. The reason he passed these messages to Duane and Myra is he knew that because of the content they would not be made visible.

...

Correction: Jack has not passed along any posts for me to put on this forum. The one message I did post I merely copied from another forum under my own initiative.

I offered to post anything for Jack a few days ago but he declined my offer.

[Bill Miller]

Peter, your previous post sounded like it was talking to me concerning the thread Jack started about me being some sort of an impostor/CIA agent/etc., etc.,

Bill

[David G. Healy]

Peter, your previous post sounded like it was talking to me concerning the thread Jack started about me being some sort of an impostor/CIA agent/etc., etc.,

Bill

my old Lone Nut pals hanging (Miller and Lamson) around a thread about Jack White, wow such care...... LMAO!

[Guest]

I must say that I find Myra's post above an extraordinary, irrational and unfair attack on John Simkin. In fact if you wanted a better caricature of an irrational female diatribe ( I await the accusations of sexism with relish - I'll store it with my anti americanism ), you would have to indulge in a good day's march to find one.

Let us not forget here that John funds this forum which he runs with my help for no profit and on top of working full time. He also runs it very fairly. This time he has had enough. Jack White for too long has had carte blanche to traduce anyone with the temerity to hold an opposing view to his. This now has ended. Mr White can still post but the moderators and admins reserve the right to make sure he remains within our board rules..... this is not unreasonable.. live with it - it is not likely to change anytime soon.

I don't know which depresses more the fact that this garbage is being played out on a forum I helped set up with educational aims in mind, or the fact that I am bothering to respond to such meaningless crap at all

[Bill Miller]

my old Lone Nut pals hanging (Miller and Lamson) around a thread about Jack White, wow such care...... LMAO!

David, please cite only the facts. My post on this forum state beyond any comprehension disabilities one might have that I believe there was a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy. That was your first misstatement of fact. The second was when you referenced me as your pal.

In my opinion this thread was a ridiculous one to start in the first place.

Bill

Edited October 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I must say that I find Myra's post above an extraordinary, irrational and unfair attack on John Simkin. In fact if you wanted a better caricature of an irrational female diatribe ( I await the accusations of sexism with relish - I'll store it with my anti americanism ), you would have to indulge in a good day's march to find one.

Let us not forget here that John funds this forum which he runs with my help for no profit and on top of working full time. He also runs it very fairly. This time he has had enough. Jack White for too long has had carte blanche to traduce anyone with the temerity to hold an opposing view to his. This now has ended. Mr White can still post but the moderators and admins reserve the right to make sure he remains within our board rules..... this is not unreasonable.. live with it - it is not likely to change anytime soon.

I don't know which depresses more the fact that this garbage is being played out on a forum I helped set up with educational aims in mind, or the fact that I am bothering to respond to such meaningless crap at all

Shouldn't depress you, presidential assassination and defense of a conspiracy therewith is ALWAYS a nasty business Mr. Walker, or haven't you heard?

[Bill Miller]

Shouldn't depress you, presidential assassination and defense of a conspiracy therewith is ALWAYS a nasty business Mr. Walker, or haven't you heard?

I think its the nasty things being posted and how it violates forum rules that is the issue at hand.

Bill

[David G. Healy]

Shouldn't depress you, presidential assassination and defense of a conspiracy therewith is ALWAYS a nasty business Mr. Walker, or haven't you heard?

I think its the nasty things being posted and how it violates forum rules that is the issue at hand.

Bill

I'm not addressing you, or do you find it necessary to speak for Mr. Walker and others that run this forum too?

[Guest]

I must say that I find Myra's post above an extraordinary, irrational and unfair attack on John Simkin. In fact if you wanted a better caricature of an irrational female diatribe ( I await the accusations of sexism with relish - I'll store it with my anti americanism ), you would have to indulge in a good day's march to find one.

Let us not forget here that John funds this forum which he runs with my help for no profit and on top of working full time. He also runs it very fairly. This time he has had enough. Jack White for too long has had carte blanche to traduce anyone with the temerity to hold an opposing view to his. This now has ended. Mr White can still post but the moderators and admins reserve the right to make sure he remains within our board rules..... this is not unreasonable.. live with it - it is not likely to change anytime soon.

I don't know which depresses more the fact that this garbage is being played out on a forum I helped set up with educational aims in mind, or the fact that I am bothering to respond to such meaningless crap at all

Shouldn't depress you, presidential assassination and defense of a conspiracy therewith is ALWAYS a nasty business Mr. Walker, or haven't you heard?

I can only assume that you honestly believed you were expressing some profound wisdom when you posted the above comment? What a shame for you.

What is crap Mr Healy is having to read these well rehearsed positions from actors within an esoteric and some would argue somewhat deranged community - one which incidentally appears NEVER to engage in research favouring ALWAYS the easier and I presume more emotionally satisfying business of digging lumps out of each other.

The issue at hand in this thread is of course the integrity (what's left of it) of this forum.

[Bill Miller]

I'm not addressing you, or do you find it necessary to speak for Mr. Walker and others that run this forum too?

David, yet when I was addressing something Peter had said ... you felt the need to respond. Am I to ask if you are speaking for Peter, or Jack, and etc.??? I guess when you double talk when you post - that its only right that you carry a double standard, as well. Get my point! I think Andy speaks in his response #103 for a lot of people who have endured your non-related JFK say-nothing responses for so long.

Bill

Edited October 5, 2007 by Bill Miller