The Future of this Forum

[Greg Parker]

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.

John, I like Myra. I admire her feistiness - but yes... sometimes it's a fine line between that and unpleasantness. I also think her loyalty to Jack is admirable. But she was wrong in what she said about you and to some extent, about Andy. And she is wrong in encouraging Jack to believe he should have free reign to say anything he wants with impunity. If she wanted to be a real friend to him, she should tell him his attempts to promulgate the idea that you and/or mods are involved in a conspiracy against him is ludicrous - demonstrably so, and springs entirely from his own imagination.

[Myra Bronstein]

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.

John, I like Myra. I admire her feistiness - but yes... sometimes it's a fine line between that and unpleasantness. I also think her loyalty to Jack is admirable. But she was wrong in what she said about you and to some extent, about Andy. And she is wrong in encouraging Jack to believe he should have free reign to say anything he wants with impunity. If she wanted to be a real friend to him, she should tell him his attempts to promulgate the idea that you and/or mods are involved in a conspiracy against him is ludicrous - demonstrably so, and springs entirely from his own imagination.

Thanks Greg, I'll think about what you said.

I do feel a strong loyalty to Jack and it's difficult to see him in this situation.

[Penny Flynn]

Dear All

I am one of the readers referred to on this thread. I am not a researcher like many of the members here and have rarely posted, but would be sad to see the forum go. I came by this forum by accident in 2004 having been spurred into reading about the assassination by a tv programme pointing out the discrepancies between the alleged wounds and the physical evidence. I have read a lot of very interesting information here. I occasionally read threads that seem to consist of a personal battle between personalities and/ or politics and find them annoying, but I tend to ignore these type of threads and look at others that are conducted in a more serious and professional manner. It is up to me what I read. I think I once read a thread in which a male contributor tried to suggest that a woman contributor should 'shut up' because 'men don't like loud women' or some such rubbish, but wasn't really offended. Even this level of misogyny was an expression of freedom of speech - however abhorrent.

Freedom of speech is important and I am quite happy to wade through personal battles, disinformation, inaccurate information, attempts to divert from the point, even bigotry, as I have found that there is always some nformation on this forum that is interesting, makes me think and is worthwhile.

I am aware that many members do serious work and may be under pressure. I also understand that this forum might become a burden to those that own and administrate it, but be assured that, up till the end, readers such as myself will always hope to have access to the forum to keep up to date with the latest research.

Best Regards

Penny

[Stephen Roy]

A radical idea for a rapidly degenerating situation:

How about a two-week moratoruim on this and the JW thread (and no new threads on the subject) to let emotions cool, and hopefully cause people to think better of all this. And get back to more productive stuff.

[Peter Hill]

Here's the answer:

1] How can there be a "diversity" of views when there's only ONE truth? There can't.

2] To allow so-called "diversity" in forum membership is to allow disinformation and blow-hards, which is the certain death of any forum. Just look around the internet -- or this forum -- to see what I mean.

Allowing LEARNING is good. Allowing GIVE AND TAKE in the search for clarity is good. But "learning" and "give and take" don't happen when even one forum member is even slightly insincere. The Education Forum is but one of many perfect examples of this reality. No one here can claim otherwise without automatically making a mockery out of themselves.

3] Rules don't matter on a forum. Membership does. Select forum members with the same care you would select employees and business partners in your own business. To believe in the panacea of "rules" is to ignore the mother of all rules: the rules of human nature. Which is to say sick people don't make healthy people get better. To believe otherwise is to confess to insanity.

4] The administrator has to be present. No amount of moderators can replace an administrator any more than employees can replace the CEO. To expect such is to welcome disaster with open arms. The corporate world is filled with infinite supporting examples.

CONCLUSION

When I first registered at this forum, I recognized the names of authors and guests of Black Op Radio in the memberlist, and I was excited. But then I got here and saw trolls and disinformation all over the place. I saw 50+ year old grumpy white men who sit there bitterly and change the subject any way they can think of, as if doing so makes them special. I see these same people -- people who have been "studying" JFK for over 25 years -- and they still can't solve the case! Any forum that embraces that type of INCOMPETENCE is bound to experience trouble. To put it honestly, there are multitudes of people here -- allowed to be here -- who don't come here to learn; they come here to argue. They come here to be sick, and to make others sick. And as long as this is allowed, the forum and its good members will suffer.

The Education Forum can be saved, but it's up to you to save it. I've given you all the information you need. The rest, as Costner said in JFK, is "up to you."

[Terry Mauro]

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).

*************************************************************************

"...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."

Now that you've mentioned it. I, for one, was nonplussed to find Evan Burton's name up there as one of the moderators. So much so, that I had to actually go back to the Apollo section to see if maybe I might have mistaken his name for someone else's. But no, it was the same Evan Burton, which IMHO, was equal to accepting applications for volunteer moderator work from someone like myself, or Myra, or Craig Lamson, even. Thanks for addressing that issue.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

********************************************************************

Thanks for posting Chris' message, John.

I'm sorry to find things had degenerated to this level, and have managed to stay out of the fray simply due to employment schedules, as of late.

I want you to know that I do support your efforts at maintaining forum sanity, and realize the pressures you're under at present. Therefore, if you chose to shut it down, I would totally understand and be in agreement with your decision.

However, your forum and its format are the culmination of what I had been begging the research sites [Prouty's, Conway's, and DellaRosa's] to join forces and become from the time I first went on-line in 1997, and was able to witness the acrimony between these particular forums. I didn't quite understand the dynamics at the time, and couldn't fathom why they had to be at odds with each other over something they all had a common goal in fighting for. I was also under the idealistic impression that if they could somehow agree to combine their large databases and work together, the research community would eventually become a force to be reckoned with.

You have achieved what I was asking for, and had in mind one long decade ago. It would be a shame to see it dismantled. But, as Pat Speer posted, it might force many of the members to have to frequent Mary Ferrell's and do a little work for themselves on their own, which in the long run might be a more productive way of educating them. In any event, it was good advice and if well-heeded may be an answer to the present dilemma. One would hope.