The Future of this Forum

[Greg Parker]

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.

Myra, when he has asked for help or explanations, he has not believed the answers, and usually spins the whole thing into a plot against him.

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.

John has been patient. The technical problems have been quickly identified. Solutions have been offered. One example... the message he always complains about when he tries to post. This message indicates he was timed out while writing his post. The problem is, you don't know you've been timed out until you try to send the post. The solution given him was to write his post in a document, then copy and paste it when complete.

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.

I believe I was the only person to publicly agree that Andy's comment above may be correct. I call it like I see it - as do you. I do think Andy went too far with other comments, and did point to one as being too harsh. To that one, I would add his comments on Jack's "inelegance" etc were quite needless.

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.

Like John, I have no interest in, and do not read, the subforums where most of the bickering takes place. However, if Evan has a "history" of antagonistic exchanges with Jack, it was almost inevitable, once Evan became a mod, that Jack would complain about being singled out for harassment by him. Evan, imo, placed himself in the firing line for what came by volunteering for the role.

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.

So John, unlike the rest of us, is not free to call it like he sees it?

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.

I don't think anyone earns, or warrants special treatment. Respect, certainly. To me, what you suggest should apply sounds neither charitable nor a reward. It sounds like condescension. Why not go whole hog and make him the forum mascot? Trot him out for anniversaries and other special occasions.

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.

Jack will apparently come off moderation in due course. Andy has been helpful in his technical advice. Maybe not so with his comebacks to Jack's sometimes over-the-top complaints about those he considers conspire against him.

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

May their gods of choice have mercy on their souls if you ever corner them (and I mean that as a compliment).

[Mike Tribe]

have been a member of this forum for a number of years and used to

contribute to it regularly. After all, it's the "Education Forum", and I

am an educator. Over the past few months, however, I've done so less and

less. I check in now and then and encounter little gems like John S's

recent posting about Karl Brandt and the Nuremberg Trials, but more and

more, I find that there is little to interest me, and little, indeed,

that can even loosely be seen as being "educational". Mr White is quite

correct in claiming that the forum has been taken over -- but not by

imaginary "agents provocateurs". It's been taken over by people with

little or no interest in education but rather a rather morbid obsession

with conspiracy theories. I'm quite happy to believe that there was

something a bit odd about the investigation into JFK's assassination.

Perhaps there was even a conspiracy. But the conspiracies which have

been alluded to here over the past couple of years included:

No one ever went to the Moon

Darwin was a hoax

Hurricane Katerina was caused by a secret government program to divert

bad weather to black areas Various 1960s pop singers were assassinated

in a darkly hidden government conspiracy Someone is spraying deadly

chemicals over parts of the USA The tsunami was in fact caused by an

atomic device planted on the seabed by Mossad agents

911 was clearly a CIA/FBI plot

The recent terror attack in Scotland was the work of a secret government

agency etc, etc

One "researcher" commented with regard to the last "conspiracy" that the

fact that the government said Islamic terrorists were responsible was

evidence that they weren't because governments always lie...

Look through the new posts any day, and you'll see that the vast

majority refer to this sort of thing. Clearly this is absorbingly

interesting to some, but few "educators" who come across the forum via a

search engine or whatever will be greatly impressed...

Certainly, they wouldn't be impressed by the sort of silly name-calling

that's been happening recently. I would tend to agree with John's

suggestion that some of the people posting and constantly starting

polemical new threads have rather lost their marbles. Not really

surprising, though, considering the paranoia constantly to be noted in

their regular postings.

So, I think the forum would be greatly improved if Mr Drago's Pied Piper

campaign met with success and huge numbers of conspiracy theorists upped

and left for some congenial promised land where they can insult each

other to their hearts' content. If they want to stay, fine. As John has

made plain, he's spent a lot of time and money setting the forum up and

maintaining it despite fairly constant criticism by people like Mr

White. It's his bat and his ball. If he wants to let the miscreants

continue to post, then so be it. If he wants to put them on moderation,

fine. If he wants to chuck them out, that's entirely up to him (and

Andy, of course).

[David G. Healy]

have been a member of this forum for a number of years and used to

contribute to it regularly. After all, it's the "Education Forum", and I

am an educator. Over the past few months, however, I've done so less and

less. I check in now and then and encounter little gems like John S's

recent posting about Karl Brandt and the Nuremberg Trials, but more and

more, I find that there is little to interest me, and little, indeed,

that can even loosely be seen as being "educational". Mr White is quite

correct in claiming that the forum has been taken over -- but not by

imaginary "agents provocateurs". It's been taken over by people with

little or no interest in education but rather a rather morbid obsession

with conspiracy theories. I'm quite happy to believe that there was

something a bit odd about the investigation into JFK's assassination.

Perhaps there was even a conspiracy. But the conspiracies which have

been alluded to here over the past couple of years included:

No one ever went to the Moon

Darwin was a hoax

Hurricane Katerina was caused by a secret government program to divert

bad weather to black areas Various 1960s pop singers were assassinated

in a darkly hidden government conspiracy Someone is spraying deadly

chemicals over parts of the USA The tsunami was in fact caused by an

atomic device planted on the seabed by Mossad agents

911 was clearly a CIA/FBI plot

The recent terror attack in Scotland was the work of a secret government

agency etc, etc

One "researcher" commented with regard to the last "conspiracy" that the

fact that the government said Islamic terrorists were responsible was

evidence that they weren't because governments always lie...

Look through the new posts any day, and you'll see that the vast

majority refer to this sort of thing. Clearly this is absorbingly

interesting to some, but few "educators" who come across the forum via a

search engine or whatever will be greatly impressed...

Certainly, they wouldn't be impressed by the sort of silly name-calling

that's been happening recently. I would tend to agree with John's

suggestion that some of the people posting and constantly starting

polemical new threads have rather lost their marbles. Not really

surprising, though, considering the paranoia constantly to be noted in

their regular postings.

So, I think the forum would be greatly improved if Mr Drago's Pied Piper

campaign met with success and huge numbers of conspiracy theorists upped

and left for some congenial promised land where they can insult each

other to their hearts' content. If they want to stay, fine. As John has

made plain, he's spent a lot of time and money setting the forum up and

maintaining it despite fairly constant criticism by people like Mr

White. It's his bat and his ball. If he wants to let the miscreants

continue to post, then so be it. If he wants to put them on moderation,

fine. If he wants to chuck them out, that's entirely up to him (and

Andy, of course).

because you have no interest in conspiracy (in paricular the JFK assassination) one wonders why you post at this end of the forum, eh?

[Charles Drago]

My Dear Mr. Tribe,

Thanks so much for paying attention.

Thanks for your splendid misinterpretation of my methodology and intentions vis a vis support of Jack White.

Thanks for characterizing my work with a degree of accuracy unexperienced since the Israelis identified the USS Liberty as an Egyptian man of war.

Thanks for acknowledging what I'm sure you know to be the insignificant oddities within the larger JFK assassination investigation.

Thanks for demonstrating the courage and vision required to accept the possibility of conspiracy in the death of JFK.

Your students are fortunate indeed to be educated by so refined, fair-minded, and disciplined a pedagogue.

What is left to say? Perhaps the immortal words of that great philosopher Billy Bats apply.

Now go home and get your shine box!

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

[Guest Gary Loughran]

What is left to say? Perhaps the immortal words of that great philosopher Billy Bats apply.

Now go home and get your shine box!

Gambino's [Luchesse] as great philosopher's; a considered put down which led to the almost imminent death of the speaker[in the movie anyhow, some weeks in reality, if you're inclined to believe Hill], suppose we should all now dance a la Oklahoma Kid!?!?!

I just don't get it I suppose!!!

[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.

Myra, when he has asked for help or explanations, he has not believed the answers, and usually spins the whole thing into a plot against him.

...

I recognize that does sometimes happen Greg.

...

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.

So John, unlike the rest of us, is not free to call it like he sees it?

...

It's one thing to call it as one sees it in regard to someone's behavior or words--something they can control.

It's another thing, a nasty thing, to ridicule someone for their age. Both John and Andy took obvious digs at Jack's age.

I think they were cheap shots. And while they might reflect some understandable frustration, they also expose an agenda of portraying the man as some doddering old fool to be flicked aside.

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.

John has been patient. The technical problems have been quickly identified. Solutions have been offered. One example... the message he always complains about when he tries to post. This message indicates he was timed out while writing his post. The problem is, you don't know you've been timed out until you try to send the post. The solution given him was to write his post in a document, then copy and paste it when complete.

...

I see. Well I still think solutions could have been devised, for example a tech FAQ describing common problems, workarounds, etc. But the decision has already been made an announced to keep Jack on moderation, so I don't want to seem like I'm continuing to argue it. I'm just following up on your comments here.

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.

I don't think anyone earns, or warrants special treatment. Respect, certainly. To me, what you suggest should apply sounds neither charitable nor a reward. It sounds like condescension. Why not go whole hog and make him the forum mascot? Trot him out for anniversaries and other special occasions.

...

A more appropriate model would be the tenure system used by universities for their most valued researchers and professors.

Whatever, it's settled.

I understand and accept John's decision, and I'll continue to benefit from Jack's posts on other forums as I benefit from the posts of other researchers here.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Mike Tribe]

My Dear Mr. Tribe,

Thanks so much for paying attention.

Thanks for your splendid misinterpretation of my methodology and intentions vis a vis support of Jack White.

Thanks for characterizing my work with a degree of accuracy unexperienced since the Israelis identified the USS Liberty as an Egyptian man of war.

Thanks for acknowledging what I'm sure you know to be the insignificant oddities within the larger JFK assassination investigation.

Thanks for demonstrating the courage and vision required to accept the possibility of conspiracy in the death of JFK.

Your students are fortunate indeed to be educated by so refined, fair-minded, and disciplined a pedagogue.

What is left to say? Perhaps the immortal words of that great philosopher Billy Bats apply.

Now go home and get your shine box!

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

Gosh, Mr Drago, I feel like I've been savaged by a dead sheep...

[Mike Tribe]

have been a member of this forum for a number of years and used to

contribute to it regularly. After all, it's the "Education Forum", and I

am an educator. Over the past few months, however, I've done so less and

less. I check in now and then and encounter little gems like John S's

recent posting about Karl Brandt and the Nuremberg Trials, but more and

more, I find that there is little to interest me, and little, indeed,

that can even loosely be seen as being "educational". Mr White is quite

correct in claiming that the forum has been taken over -- but not by

imaginary "agents provocateurs". It's been taken over by people with

little or no interest in education but rather a rather morbid obsession

with conspiracy theories. I'm quite happy to believe that there was

something a bit odd about the investigation into JFK's assassination.

Perhaps there was even a conspiracy. But the conspiracies which have

been alluded to here over the past couple of years included:

No one ever went to the Moon

Darwin was a hoax

Hurricane Katerina was caused by a secret government program to divert

bad weather to black areas Various 1960s pop singers were assassinated

in a darkly hidden government conspiracy Someone is spraying deadly

chemicals over parts of the USA The tsunami was in fact caused by an

atomic device planted on the seabed by Mossad agents

911 was clearly a CIA/FBI plot

The recent terror attack in Scotland was the work of a secret government

agency etc, etc

One "researcher" commented with regard to the last "conspiracy" that the

fact that the government said Islamic terrorists were responsible was

evidence that they weren't because governments always lie...

Look through the new posts any day, and you'll see that the vast

majority refer to this sort of thing. Clearly this is absorbingly

interesting to some, but few "educators" who come across the forum via a

search engine or whatever will be greatly impressed...

Certainly, they wouldn't be impressed by the sort of silly name-calling

that's been happening recently. I would tend to agree with John's

suggestion that some of the people posting and constantly starting

polemical new threads have rather lost their marbles. Not really

surprising, though, considering the paranoia constantly to be noted in

their regular postings.

So, I think the forum would be greatly improved if Mr Drago's Pied Piper

campaign met with success and huge numbers of conspiracy theorists upped

and left for some congenial promised land where they can insult each

other to their hearts' content. If they want to stay, fine. As John has

made plain, he's spent a lot of time and money setting the forum up and

maintaining it despite fairly constant criticism by people like Mr

White. It's his bat and his ball. If he wants to let the miscreants

continue to post, then so be it. If he wants to put them on moderation,

fine. If he wants to chuck them out, that's entirely up to him (and

Andy, of course).

because you have no interest in conspiracy (in paricular the JFK assassination) one wonders why you post at this end of the forum, eh?

Sorry, I thought this was "The Education Forum" -- not the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Forum. The thread was entitled "The Future of this Forum". I mistakenly assumed that even members who didn't share your obvious interest in arcane "conspiracies" might be permitted an opinion. Clearly I was wrong...

[Guest David Guyatt]

Mr. Tribe, Charles Drago appears to have savaged one of your feet. Might I be permitted to do likewise to the other.

Ah, that's better.

Now kindly stumble off like the good educator chappie you are, and apply a deeply sanctimonious solution to your hidebound wounds. If it stings (which can only be hoped for) then know that it is doing you good.

Ta, ta.

[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.

[Charles Drago]

Gosh, Mr Drago, I feel like I've been savaged by a dead sheep...

Gosh, Mr. Tribe, I have no doubt that you recognize that old, familiar, warm, fuzzy feeling.

Baaaaah humbug!

Edited October 5, 2007 by Charles Drago

[John Simkin]

I have had this message from Chris Dolmar:

I administer 'The American Town Hall Political Research Forum.' : http://www.forumspring.com/americanpolitic/

I occasionally visit your forum as a reference in JFK Assassination research. Although this communique does not concern that, I am writing after reading the thread " The Future of this Forum": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11141

I too, in my initial endeavor into forum creation & management, encountered the basic headaches you are currently addressing.

Freedom of Speech is vital not only as a basic Social Justice Right as humans, but for us, as Admins, to perpetuate the values of credibility and integrity of the forum(s) we maintain & administrate.

It is a mighty task to remain the neutral referee within forums of our kind. I regret to admit that I myself have made more than my fair share of biased decisions over the years due to allowing my emotions or views to creep into my 'neutral' judgment regarding a dispute or flame war sparked by forum members.

I devised a set of rules & titled it: "Forum Code of Conduct."

I vowed to stand by the Code of Conduct stipulations I instituted regarding violations by Any & All forum members:

The following Terms Of Engagement and Forum Code Of Conduct stipulations are in place to safeguard the purpose of The American Political Research Townhall Forum -- the free exchange of information and ideas in a cooperative and useful atmosphere, an environment which rarely exists nowadays in most other forums.

While these rules may seem draconian on the surface, it is through past & painful educated experience(s) in other political research forums that these rules have been devised. Real patriots, serious students, individual citizen members and political researchers, rest assured that you will be defended here. The forum code of conduct stipulations are designed to protect you from the most common forms of disruption sowed by the vast ' newsgroup xxxxx populace' that tirelessly roams the internet seeking new forum/msg board avenues from which to blaze their trails of unprovoked cyber assault & mayhem (See Also: "Internet Trolls").

Members are free to express their views and share the results/opinions of their individual research without being unduly criticized, ridiculed, or subjected to belligerent, personal attacks or threats by other members.

While members are free to criticize ideas, theories, research and methodologies -- they are NOT free to criticize each other personally.

Various facets of the topics discussed here may, from time to time, cause emotions to run high. In order to promote free expression in an emotional environment, it is recommended that members always be mindful of truth, honor, and respect, the primary values of this forum.

High-quality, constructive critical debate is encouraged and vital to our success as a forum, therefore in times of heated discussion(s), members are advised to confront the issue, not the person. In the unlikely event that a personal issue should arise between members, a moderator or administrator will work to help resolve the issue.

INSTANT DEATH POLICY

Obviously abusive disruption tactics exhibited here (Of which the Admins/Mods here ARE All Too familiar with) will not be tolerated and will simply result in the banning of the offending member(s). Any member(s) banned for violations of the aforementioned guidelines or the Forum Code of Conduct listed below will not be reinstated.

While forum members recognize the code of conduct, trolls don't. Thus . . .

Once again; To the trolls: -- be assured of the "instant death" policy. There will be no additional "warnings." ANY Failure to abide by AND adhere to the Forum Code Of Conduct below, AND the Terms Of Engagement listed above, whether by claimed "ignorance", or otherwise, and any blatant disruptive behavior will lead to instantly and permanently banned membership.

Please take a moment to review the Forum Code Of Conduct detailed below.

FORUM CODE OF CONDUCT

1] While real names are not required for membership, this is a "real name" environment. Handles, particularly well-known, credible handles are welcome here. But trolls, masquerading under various handles, including handles that appear to be real names, will be banned instantly upon detection.

2] All bots, spammers, pornographers, and flooders will be banned instantly upon detection. Registered members are entitled to know who their audience is.

3] A valid e-mail address is required for membership. E-mail addresses are validated as part of the registration process. You may get several response e-mails from the Administrators of this forum in order to validate your membership. In the event that an e-mail is determined to be non-functioning, or a fraud, the membership connected to that e-mail will be banned instantly and permanently. If you experience trouble with, or change, your e-mail, please PM an administrator so that your membership with the forum will not be jeopardized.

4] Ad hominem (personal) attacks MAY NOT be used against any other member. ("Flame free" zone.) Trolling will result in banned membership. All forms of personal attacks upon any forum member(s) ARE hereby designated as trolling, including but not limited to: the posting of offensive images directed at another member, repeated demands for "proof," the hijacking of forum threads, etc.

5] Upon detection, any use of the Private Messaging feature to harass a registered member will result in banned membership. Furthermore, cyber attacks of any kind, such as e-mail hijacking, stripped images, altered URL's, or any other attack, directed against any member, or the forum itself, will, upon detection, result in banned membership, up to and including criminal prosecution in the real world, of any member, non-member, or any other cabal of conspirators.

6] "Outing" another member's personal information, such as name, address, telephone number, e-mail, even if posted indirectly, will result in banned membership and immediate deletion of the post.

7] Once a member is banned, he or she is banned permanently.

8] Never publicly post PMs (Private Messages). If comments in a PM are relevant to research, such as one member requesting info from another, those comments may be paraphrased. When in doubt, ask a moderator or administrator.

9] The moderators and administrators may, from time to time, move a post to another forum in order to better the quality of the forum. A brief post explaining the move will be temporarily posted. Any questions, PM a moderator or an administrator.

10] The administrators may delete any post at any time for any reason. This is blanket protection against criminal attacks.

11] The administrators reserve the right to amend the forum rules and terms of engagement at any time for any reason. This is the administrators' loophole.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

It truly is sad that Jack can now only post under moderation. In my opinion, however, the situation has been handled fairly and with great tolerance by all the moderators and administrators of the forum. As far as I'm aware no administrator dismissed Jack's claims without [repetitively] first diligently checking logs, software etc. which is to their credit.

It was Jack's backyard studies that led me to this forum in the first place and I have great respect for the man and his work - but not blind deference. Of late I've noticed a few studies which have been provably in error [the 911 sign and bin]. Like Evan I was able to replicate the scenario to my satisfaction. Whilst Jack has been undoubtedly and unfairly baited by some, he could do worse than admit the occassional error. I strongly believe that admission of errors is a character building exercise and positive attribute in a person. No doubt one error admission would not satisfy some of his opponents who would demand 'sackcloth and ashes'. It would however be a start.

Many excellent posters and topics in the PC forum are swamped with Apollo and 911 pieces which often cover the same ground and all end in generally the same argumentative way, Peter Lemkin, David Guyatt, John Simkin and many other post new and informative pieces nearly every day - it is a shame they disappear quicker than WTC 7 with or without thermate.

If John and/or Andy were to utilise the code of conduct above it would be a sad day for the forum - sadder even than the appointment of much and unfairly maligned moderators. Whilst the code of conduct has many positive attributes, it has the potential to reduce current membership through permanent bans, nearly unheard of in this forum - despite the added burden moderation of posts places on the moderators...is that what the future of the forum holds???

As a group the membership of the forum hold the keys to it's future.

[Pat Speer]

My sympathies are with John and Andy. They built this forum to attract educators and authors, so that they may intelligently discuss history and other topics. And now the forum has been flooded with buffs primarily interested in spewing their own opinions, and the educators and authors have fled.

One way to stop this descent is for forum members to better educate themselves. There are hundreds of thousands of pages now up at the Mary Ferrell Foundation, most of them rarely read by educators, authors, and buffs. My humble suggestion: we should all spend some time researching over at MFF, and then report back here what we've've learned.

[David G. Healy]

I have had this message from Chris Dolmar:

I administer 'The American Town Hall Political Research Forum.' : http://www.forumspring.com/americanpolitic/

I occasionally visit your forum as a reference in JFK Assassination research. Although this communique does not concern that, I am writing after reading the thread " The Future of this Forum": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11141

I too, in my initial endeavor into forum creation & management, encountered the basic headaches you are currently addressing.

Freedom of Speech is vital not only as a basic Social Justice Right as humans, but for us, as Admins, to perpetuate the values of credibility and integrity of the forum(s) we maintain & administrate.

It is a mighty task to remain the neutral referee within forums of our kind. I regret to admit that I myself have made more than my fair share of biased decisions over the years due to allowing my emotions or views to creep into my 'neutral' judgment regarding a dispute or flame war sparked by forum members.

I devised a set of rules & titled it: "Forum Code of Conduct."

I vowed to stand by the Code of Conduct stipulations I instituted regarding violations by Any & All forum members:

The following Terms Of Engagement and Forum Code Of Conduct stipulations are in place to safeguard the purpose of The American Political Research Townhall Forum -- the free exchange of information and ideas in a cooperative and useful atmosphere, an environment which rarely exists nowadays in most other forums.

While these rules may seem draconian on the surface, it is through past & painful educated experience(s) in other political research forums that these rules have been devised. Real patriots, serious students, individual citizen members and political researchers, rest assured that you will be defended here. The forum code of conduct stipulations are designed to protect you from the most common forms of disruption sowed by the vast ' newsgroup xxxxx populace' that tirelessly roams the internet seeking new forum/msg board avenues from which to blaze their trails of unprovoked cyber assault & mayhem (See Also: "Internet Trolls").

Members are free to express their views and share the results/opinions of their individual research without being unduly criticized, ridiculed, or subjected to belligerent, personal attacks or threats by other members.

While members are free to criticize ideas, theories, research and methodologies -- they are NOT free to criticize each other personally.

Various facets of the topics discussed here may, from time to time, cause emotions to run high. In order to promote free expression in an emotional environment, it is recommended that members always be mindful of truth, honor, and respect, the primary values of this forum.

High-quality, constructive critical debate is encouraged and vital to our success as a forum, therefore in times of heated discussion(s), members are advised to confront the issue, not the person. In the unlikely event that a personal issue should arise between members, a moderator or administrator will work to help resolve the issue.

INSTANT DEATH POLICY

Obviously abusive disruption tactics exhibited here (Of which the Admins/Mods here ARE All Too familiar with) will not be tolerated and will simply result in the banning of the offending member(s). Any member(s) banned for violations of the aforementioned guidelines or the Forum Code of Conduct listed below will not be reinstated.

While forum members recognize the code of conduct, trolls don't. Thus . . .

Once again; To the trolls: -- be assured of the "instant death" policy. There will be no additional "warnings." ANY Failure to abide by AND adhere to the Forum Code Of Conduct below, AND the Terms Of Engagement listed above, whether by claimed "ignorance", or otherwise, and any blatant disruptive behavior will lead to instantly and permanently banned membership.

Please take a moment to review the Forum Code Of Conduct detailed below.

FORUM CODE OF CONDUCT

1] While real names are not required for membership, this is a "real name" environment. Handles, particularly well-known, credible handles are welcome here. But trolls, masquerading under various handles, including handles that appear to be real names, will be banned instantly upon detection.

2] All bots, spammers, pornographers, and flooders will be banned instantly upon detection. Registered members are entitled to know who their audience is.

3] A valid e-mail address is required for membership. E-mail addresses are validated as part of the registration process. You may get several response e-mails from the Administrators of this forum in order to validate your membership. In the event that an e-mail is determined to be non-functioning, or a fraud, the membership connected to that e-mail will be banned instantly and permanently. If you experience trouble with, or change, your e-mail, please PM an administrator so that your membership with the forum will not be jeopardized.

4] Ad hominem (personal) attacks MAY NOT be used against any other member. ("Flame free" zone.) Trolling will result in banned membership. All forms of personal attacks upon any forum member(s) ARE hereby designated as trolling, including but not limited to: the posting of offensive images directed at another member, repeated demands for "proof," the hijacking of forum threads, etc.

5] Upon detection, any use of the Private Messaging feature to harass a registered member will result in banned membership. Furthermore, cyber attacks of any kind, such as e-mail hijacking, stripped images, altered URL's, or any other attack, directed against any member, or the forum itself, will, upon detection, result in banned membership, up to and including criminal prosecution in the real world, of any member, non-member, or any other cabal of conspirators.

6] "Outing" another member's personal information, such as name, address, telephone number, e-mail, even if posted indirectly, will result in banned membership and immediate deletion of the post.

7] Once a member is banned, he or she is banned permanently.

8] Never publicly post PMs (Private Messages). If comments in a PM are relevant to research, such as one member requesting info from another, those comments may be paraphrased. When in doubt, ask a moderator or administrator.

9] The moderators and administrators may, from time to time, move a post to another forum in order to better the quality of the forum. A brief post explaining the move will be temporarily posted. Any questions, PM a moderator or an administrator.

10] The administrators may delete any post at any time for any reason. This is blanket protection against criminal attacks.

11] The administrators reserve the right to amend the forum rules and terms of engagement at any time for any reason. This is the administrators' loophole.

there is a price to pay when forum's need adverstising to exist-- generating traffic isn't easy. In general forum managers & advertiser'scould give a whit about the truth.....