The Future of this Forum

[Greg Parker]

Maybe there should be a private forum with restrictive access where anything goes(ok not anything but full expression of laungage & opinions) & those that agree to enter it, either to read or take part by posting, know what there getting into if they go there?

Maybe they could even moderate themselves to some degree, not by editing posts of course but by self expression. You could also throw the troublemakers there too(until they prove themselves) & anyone that wants to argue with them knows where to find them.

I don't know how it would work exactly, I'm just throwing an idea out.

I hope thing get easier for you & the mods soon John.

Alan,

What a tremendously creative idea.!!! I don't know if it's do-able, but it's creative as all get out!!!

And previously offered and rejected. See "Behaviour of Members" thread, post #25 from Jan 21 this year.

Kathy

[Greg Parker]

Apologies for not responding to this thread earlier but we are currently in the process of moving half the school into a new purpose built school building half a mile away from the old building which is pressing on my time somewhat to say the least

John Simkin's actions have been perfectly reasonable and extremely patient in his handling of Jack White. In fact I believe he has been far too indulgent of Jack's excesses for far too long This whole controversy started I believe with Jack's inability to log on correctly and then deliberately misinterpreting the message he received when trying to post when not logged on as some grand conspiracy against by the evil moderators.

Andy, I think it may be a bit harsh to say he deliberately misinterpreted the message. I think the problem was, he was being timed out. This was explained to him by you. He then chose, I think, to find your explanation not plausible, and as you say, spun it into a conspiracy against him.

He then abused and traduced them in his usual inelegant and unpleasant style. Jack has been warned about this on many occasions and now has been put under moderation - quite a predictable consequence of an oft repeated behaviour. The accusations Jack has made about the forum moderators and the forum himself constitute fantastic nonsense.

Though I believe he is quite elderly dealing with Jack White is like dealing with a small child. I would suggest that Jack is loving the attention he is now getting and has engineered this situation quite deliberately to attract yet more. He is not banned from posting but has significantly not posted since being under moderation... Well done Jack... enjoy the attention while it lasts..... I would hope however that those here genuinely interested in research or education will continue to post topics of interest like rational and polite human beings. If Jack wishes to join in he is perfectly at liberty to do so.

You are probably right about there being an attention seeking component to his behaviour. I've just done a quick look at his posts for September - between 70 and 80 - and 22 consisted mostly or entirely, of complaints and/or abuse.

Maybe someone, for the sake of balance, could do a similar quick scan of those he is most at odds with.

Why Jack does not confine himself to posting at JFKResearch is beyond me. He can surely feel the love and admiration there -- not to mention sit back and watch the wagons circling anyone who takes his theories to task.

Your small child analogy may be on the money as to why. Some (believe me!) set out to get negative attention.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Greg Parker

[Chuck Robbins]

Anger is pretty much a standard response when one is confronted by intolerant persons who have made personal attacks

against the messenger, rather than debating civilly the message they carry, the preferred manner of responding to issues.

Responding to the topic and it's content, rather than focusing attentions on the person one disagrees with, would be the proper

manner of discussing and attempting to settle the differences of opinion we all have had with others from time to time.

John and Andy must have finally reached their wit's end.

Imagine trying to keep us all, a group of ADULTS, in line and on track, working TOGETHER towards a common goal while,

at the same time, having to ride herd on us.

We need to ensure that the forum maintains it's dignity and we should remember that people visit us looking for answers

to some very serious questions. Let's provide them with a civil environment, a place where they may voice their thoughts

and opinions without being subjected to a nasty name calling contest.

Now...having said all this, I will admit that I have been guilty of unpleasant behaviour on occasion.

Can we all put the past behind us? I would like to believe that we all are capable of treating each other with respect

despite any differing viewpoints me may hold.

Not one of us knows all there is to know about this subject.

Collectively, however, we present very convincing evidence that the events which took place in Dealey Plaza, in November of 1963,

is a very different version than that contained in the propaganda the U.S. Govt. has chanted to the world over the last 44 years.

Thanks....

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Collectively, however, we present very convincing evidence that the events which took place in Dealey Plaza, in November of 1963,

is a very different version than that contained in the propaganda the U.S. Govt. has chanted to the world over the last 44 years.

Thanks....

Hear hear. At the end of the day thats all that really matters, community intellegence at its best.

[Dawn Meredith]

John,

Why not rethink the entire project and decide what you want to get out of it? You and Andy are the ones bearing the responsibility for this forum. Whatever it is that is most important to you, then, you should be able to achieve.

Moderating here seems to be at times more of a problem than a solution. What if a separate section of the forum was defined as a place where there was no moderation? Members could post there at will and those creating time-consuming issues for the mods could just be allowed to post in the unrestrained section.

I too have been through the difficulties with banning posters. I just don't think that's a viable alternative.

Best wishes, whatever you do.

First I think John and Andy for this forum and hope that it continues and that people will abide by the rules.

Pam: You are the resident expert on the limo. I know there was a shot through the front windshield, but recently I also read something about a different shot to the chrome near the window. Can you shed any light on this?

Many thanks.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

We need to ensure that the forum maintains it's dignity and we should remember that people visit us looking for answers

to some very serious questions. Let's provide them with a civil environment, a place where they may voice their thoughts

and opinions without being subjected to a nasty name calling contest.

Can we all put the past behind us? I would like to believe that we all are capable of treating each other with respect

despite any differing viewpoints me may hold.

Not one of us knows all there is to know about this subject.

Collectively, however, we present very convincing evidence that the events which took place in Dealey Plaza, in November of 1963,

is a very different version than that contained in the propaganda the U.S. Govt. has chanted to the world over the last 44 years.

Thanks....

I agree, we are all here guilty of letting emotion sometimes casue a hasty response. Some posters invite attack, so such response must be avoided, or at least that portion of the post avoided. It is always good to remind ourselves that there are new people reading this forum all the time. The Education Forum must remain just that and the sniping must end.

Different views must be tolerated, whether they be about moon landings, 9-11, number of (JFK) shooters, directions of shots on 11/22, what people see in all the washed out pics....etc. etc.

We are all in agreement that JFK was murdered on 11/22/63 by a conspiracy from the highest levels of our government. Those powers that be continue to this day. Our responsibility is to raise the level of discussion, add new relevent information, ask pertinent questions, debate withouth flaming.

I apologise for when I have acted beneath these standards.

Dawn

[Stephen Roy]

This is off-topic, so I don't want to belabor it.

[...]

Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field.

[...]

nonsense, if your not aware of the 10 year history of JFKResearch, you should educate yourself BEFORE you insert foot into mouth.... even ole Len Colby can be seen at JFKResearch these day's, fancy that!

I stand by what I said: JFKR DID have a system of favorites and unfavorites. I witnessed several groundswells to ban members there. Rich decided to charge users to utilize the forum, and I and others dropped off due to both the charges and the stifling political correctness. Now all the good discussion goes on here - one hears almost nothing from JFKR these days. JFKR was a good idea that failed to work well, and one of the reasons was its tendency to stifle dissent.

One who does not follow the JFKR line needs to be "educated?"

[Barry Keane]

John

Don't close the forum.

Nobody on this forum , or any other has the monopoly on wisdom. I belong to this forum and the others to learn, to make considered judgments and sometimes contribute. You are doing a great job, don't let posters emotive responses sway you from your efforts.I do not get embroiled in petty arguments, I just ignore them. Some great information has been posted on this forum you should be proud that you have made this possible. Jack White is one hell of a researcher, as are many on this forum. We need this place to try to correct a grave

historical error. We owe it to the memory of John F. Kennedy but mostly for ourselves and future generations.

Keep on trucking

Barry

[David G. Healy]

This is off-topic, so I don't want to belabor it.

[...]

Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field.

[...]

nonsense, if your not aware of the 10 year history of JFKResearch, you should educate yourself BEFORE you insert foot into mouth.... even ole Len Colby can be seen at JFKResearch these day's, fancy that!

I stand by what I said: JFKR DID have a system of favorites and unfavorites. I witnessed several groundswells to ban members there. Rich decided to charge users to utilize the forum, and I and others dropped off due to both the charges and the stifling political correctness. Now all the good discussion goes on here - one hears almost nothing from JFKR these days. JFKR was a good idea that failed to work well, and one of the reasons was its tendency to stifle dissent.

One who does not follow the JFKR line needs to be "educated?"

as I said: "nonsense, if your not aware of the 10 year history of JFKResearch, you should educate yourself BEFORE you insert foot into mouth....

[Courtney Redd]

Please don't close the forum. This is the best place on the internet to discuss, debate and learn about the JFK assassination (among other topics, yes, but this is where I spend most of my time). It would be a great loss to the community if you were to close down. I'm sorry things have gotten so ugly but please figure out a way to keep going here. If you need more moderators, I'd be willing to help you. I've a thick skin and am fair.

But please don't close down. I'd miss this place something fierce.

[Bill Miller]

nonsense, if your not aware of the 10 year history of JFKResearch, you should educate yourself BEFORE you insert foot into mouth.... even ole Len Colby can be seen at JFKResearch these day's, fancy that!

I cannot think of anyone who hasn't been aware of JFKResearch ... I think even John and/or Andy has referenced it in the past, but probably not in the light that you'd like to have seen. Here one can show where someone like you has contradicted yourself in the same thread and not risk being warned or banned for doing so. I think I even may have heard Leno zing it a few times in his monologue. There Jack can say whatever he wishes and as vulgar as he wishes to do it and it goes unchallenged ... that's part of the problem because he must have been under the impression that would also be true here. And I have seen Pam's post even when I disagreed with a particular point she had made and she goes that extra mile to try and explain why she holds the opinions that she does, unlike nearly every post you have made on this forum. If one looks at your response to her - you said nothing of substance. Tell us why she was wrong in thinking that John and Andy should not be allowed to run their forum as they wish ... Pam would give that courtesy to you.

Bill

Edited October 5, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Myra Bronstein]

Well so much has been said on this subject by now that even if I can't go back and read all the background skirmishes, I can make some conclusions based on long term observations and recent posts. Bottom line:

This is a boffo forum and I hope it keeps going. But, if it doesn't then the void will quickly be filled and those of us who are dedicated to exposing the truth about what was taken from us, and who took it, will keep pushing forward.

Technical issues are one of the biggest contributing factors in Jack's ongoing forum frustrations, if not the biggest factor. For a variety of reasons mostly beyond the admin's control, the software sometimes acts flakey and makes it harder for some people to post and/or upload pix and/or even stay logged in. Whereas some people are not put off by technical flukes, Jack seems to have little patience for them. So he will quickly ask for help, but in a way that lacks tact, and also in a way that can provoke the ire of an admin.

If we had an admin that was extra patient and kind and willing to give a little personal assistance to one of the most important, revered, and adored JFK researchers of all time, then the technical problems could probably be quickly identified and resolved, and Jack could soon be up and running and--true to form--finding something else to grumble about.

Instead we have admin Andy, who rarely misses an opportunity to humiliate and belittle, and takes particular relish in insulting Jack. He intentionally goads him. And Jack is easy to goad; we all know what the result will be because he is not exactly Mr. Zen. Here's a recent example; but then there's always a recent example:

Andy>"Though I believe he is quite elderly dealing with Jack White is like dealing with a small child."

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

Oh yeah, fuel on the fire. And sure 'nuff the result is the usual one. At which time all the trolls (you know who you are)--who target Jack because of his stature and productivity and courage--smell blood and pile on Jack and provoke him to the nuclear level. But they don't seem to get nailed for provoking the guy. Instead the guy gets nailed for being provoked, for being a human, admittedly a hot blooded human but hey, we all have our limits.

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. So it's kind of a shame that he is about to get really pissed at me for what I'm about to say. But oh well stuff happens so here goes. For some reason John has opted to make the following remark about the situation with Jack:

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.

But John was right about one thing, Jack has done great work. And many of us do feel indebted to Jack and beyond that feel tremendous affection for Jack. And I for one, take it personally when this VIP is treated so shabbily. Frankly I do think he has earned VIP treatment on this forum and on every JFK forum. I'm not saying he should be given special treatment out of charity, I'm saying he should be given the special treatment he has earned.

It would just be so kewl to wake up tomorrow and see that John graciously took Jack off moderation with no strings attached and Jack graciously promised to be more calm in the face of frustration while Andy graciously agreed to be genuinely helpful to Jack in the future when he encounters the inevitable technical problems.

Then we could get back to the issue of those gangsters who killed our last great president.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Dixie Dea]

Deleted...no longer pertains to thread.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Dixie Dea

[John Simkin]

While I often lurk, I don't often post here, preferring to post only when I have something to add, such as on David Ferrie matters. But I want to add a few thoughts here.

I appreciate this forum and all who post here, irrespective of disagreements. I incline more to inclusion than exclusion. It bothers me when people get whipped into a fenzy to expel this person or that person.

Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field.

This was also my experience of the JFK Research Forum. I was stopped from posting because I refused to accept the “official line” on the assassination. It is interesting that you use the word “cult” to describe this group. I think you are right and this approach to the assassination is a major problem. It is also significant that the information on JFK Research Forum is available to general public. It seems more important to convince themselves that they are right than it is to have any impact on those who might be open to the possibility that government’s lie to the people they should be serving.

This forum was originally established for students and teachers to debate controversial issues. As an historian I was especially keen for these discussions to look at different interpretations of past events. (This is something that is part of the British National Curriculum). I also saw it as a place where witnesses of important events would have the opportunity to provide information about what really happened.

This Forum was an attempt to bring together people with all different views on events from the past. I hoped that this would show students that it was possible to have rational debates with people who you disagree with. This has happened but in far too many cases it has ended up with people resorting to personal abuse.

This is the reason why we will not be creating a special part of the forum where the more aggressive members can abuse each other. I am sure some visitors would find this very entertaining but it is not the message I want to give people seeking to find the truth about subjects that interest them.

Several members have suggested we warn members about their behaviour. This is what we have been doing for several years. The problem is that it just does not work. They genuinely cannot control themselves. As Andy points out, I have been protecting Jack White for sometime. However, enough is enough. I can no longer cope with his belief that everything that takes place is part of a conspiracy against him.

His false accusations against the moderators has changed my mind about the way this forum is run. Jack White will remain on moderation. This does not stop him from posting. However, it does mean that the postings will not be made visible until they have been checked by one of the administrators or moderators. The same will happen to anyone else who constantly breaks the rules.

[Guest David Guyatt]

While I often lurk, I don't often post here, preferring to post only when I have something to add, such as on David Ferrie matters. But I want to add a few thoughts here.

I appreciate this forum and all who post here, irrespective of disagreements. I incline more to inclusion than exclusion. It bothers me when people get whipped into a fenzy to expel this person or that person.

Consider other forums: JFKResearch could have been a good place to have discussions, but it quickly degenerated into a cult who discouraged dissent with browbeating; when the beaten pushed back, they were expelled. Now the forum has ceased to be a player in this field.

This was also my experience of the JFK Research Forum. I was stopped from posting because I refused to accept the “official line” on the assassination. It is interesting that you use the word “cult” to describe this group. I think you are right and this approach to the assassination is a major problem. It is also significant that the information on JFK Research Forum is available to general public. It seems more important to convince themselves that they are right than it is to have any impact on those who might be open to the possibility that government’s lie to the people they should be serving.

This forum was originally established for students and teachers to debate controversial issues. As an historian I was especially keen for these discussions to look at different interpretations of past events. (This is something that is part of the British National Curriculum). I also saw it as a place where witnesses of important events would have the opportunity to provide information about what really happened.

This Forum was an attempt to bring together people with all different views on events from the past. I hoped that this would show students that it was possible to have rational debates with people who you disagree with. This has happened but in far too many cases it has ended up with people resorting to personal abuse.

This is the reason why we will not be creating a special part of the forum where the more aggressive members can abuse each other. I am sure some visitors would find this very entertaining but it is not the message I want to give people seeking to find the truth about subjects that interest them.

Several members have suggested we warn members about their behaviour. This is what we have been doing for several years. The problem is that it just does not work. They genuinely cannot control themselves. As Andy points out, I have been protecting Jack White for sometime. However, enough is enough. I can no longer cope with his belief that everything that takes place is part of a conspiracy against him.

His false accusations against the moderators has changed my mind about the way this forum is run. Jack White will remain on moderation. This does not stop him from posting. However, it does mean that the postings will not be made visible until they have been checked by one of the administrators or moderators. The same will happen to anyone else who constantly breaks the rules.

John,

Might I humbly suggest that those of an insensitive and argumentative nature who enjoy sharing abuse, go HERE:

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-p...-arguement.html

David