Jump to content
The Education Forum

What do people think of uniting to attain specific goals?


Recommended Posts

This is continued from the thread: "Replying to John Simkin and the Administration of this Forum" which I don't want to derail.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=15#entry121546

The upshot is, to those who mentioned in other threads that people are free to start their own groups, I totally agree and have been thinking in those terms for some time. And I am not hinting that I'm flouncing off to start my own forum. I'm staying.

And for some time I've wanted to get more strategic and active as a group. And I would like for this group to span all the major JFK forums (which would be quite a trick at this point 'cause most everyone's pissed at me). But still, I have a dream...

My intention, when my horrendous schedule permits, was to start a google or yahoo group, specifically invite John, Rich & Debra, and open it to any others who are interested in taking tangible steps to reveal and expose the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.

Among the steps I'm considering:

-A newspaper ad in the NY times (clearly something requiring big bucks, and therefore hard to do as individuals).

-A clear objective to the ad including but not limited to pushing for enforcement of the JFK record act (aka BK's strategy), and directing people to books and websites where they can learn more).

-Associated, customized, ongoing videos on youtube.

-And so on...

So the other group, whatever it'd be called, would NOT be another research group. There are enough good research groups IMO (even if we do squabble a lot). And Lancer already arranges research meeting, conventions.

It would be specifically chartered with USING the research to educate the public and pressure the appropriate agencies and authorities into doing what they should be doing, as well as countering propaganda.

Here's another difference between the proposed group and the existing research groups, we would agree on the basics of the plot against the president, and LNers and/or trolls will not be tolerated. I won't even pretend to be as tolerant as the John, Rich, Debra.

So that's the upshot of what I've been thinking for a while. Granted the timing is odd (understatement), but what the heck--maybe all the energy from recent discussions can be channeled. And I do tend to work better in groups (yes, really) because I need the cooler heads around me to modulate my fervor.

I feel much urgency about doing this because not only has too much time passed since the crime (duh), but I feel strongly that the internet is the best tool the JFK research/activist community has ever had. And I feel certain that the internet will be targeted asap because it has to terrify the keepers of secrets. So we should use this invaluable tool to the max while we can.

I welcome discussion and input.

Do you guys think think there is sufficient interest in working toward certain goals as a group (across multiple forums) to justify and sustain a dedicated yahoo/google group?

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Myra,

Your ideas are worth serious consideration, and I hope that I'll be able to offer worthy responses soon.

Until then, you've inspired the following:

Why not ask John, Rich, and Debra to form a -- what shall I call it? -- Leadership Forum? I'm thinking of a multi-site, two-stage approach.

The Leadership Forum would appear simultaneously on all three websites.

Stage One -- Closed to all but the principals. A full and free exchange among the leadership, if you will.

Stage Two -- Open to one and all.

Each site would provide a moderator.

Thoughts, please.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra,

Your ideas are worth serious consideration, and I hope that I'll be able to offer worthy responses soon.

Until then, you've inspired the following:

Why not ask John, Rich, and Debra to form a -- what shall I call it? -- Leadership Forum? I'm thinking of a multi-site, two-stage approach.

The Leadership Forum would appear simultaneously on all three websites.

Stage One -- Closed to all but the principals. A full and free exchange among the leadership, if you will.

Stage Two -- Open to one and all.

Each site would provide a moderator.

Thoughts, please.

Charles

Charles,

Why not put this garbage on one of the other threads. First you asked for people not to post anymore outside of the one thread and now you are posting this stuff on new threads. And you also seemed to be addressing this post to Myra - do you not have a PM option? You two seem hell-bent on doing what-ever it takes to make it appear as if you are right regardless of how wrong you are.

Here is a thought ... you and Myra start your own forum - problem solved!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a thought ... you and Myra start your own forum - problem solved!

Bill Miller

A splendid idea.

I hereby offer the dear lady a free online tutorial service just so long as she carries the promise out :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra,

Your ideas are worth serious consideration, and I hope that I'll be able to offer worthy responses soon.

Until then, you've inspired the following:

Why not ask John, Rich, and Debra to form a -- what shall I call it? -- Leadership Forum? I'm thinking of a multi-site, two-stage approach.

The Leadership Forum would appear simultaneously on all three websites.

Stage One -- Closed to all but the principals. A full and free exchange among the leadership, if you will.

Stage Two -- Open to one and all.

Each site would provide a moderator.

Thoughts, please.

Charles

Charles,

Why not put this garbage on one of the other threads. First you asked for people not to post anymore outside of the one thread and now you are posting this stuff on new threads. And you also seemed to be addressing this post to Myra - do you not have a PM option? You two seem hell-bent on doing what-ever it takes to make it appear as if you are right regardless of how wrong you are.

Here is a thought ... you and Myra start your own forum - problem solved!

Bill Miller

Bill,

Your problem, perhaps.

My idea for a Leadership Forum -- which I posed to everyone with access to these pages -- is, in your opinion, "garbage"?

Thank you for the most ringing of endorsements.

In the mean, you keep those "shut up, Charles" arguments coming. They make my point -- and my day.

Ever present,

Charles Drago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the advantage of your own site and domain. But you'd have to purchase some softare that [i think] is not cheap nor easy

to set up at the get go.....may the force be with you.

The other big advantage of your own site is that you can set your own house rules..... and then get routinely abused by hysterical people who either can't understand them or can't stick to them :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a thought ... you and Myra start your own forum - problem solved!

Bill Miller

A splendid idea.

I hereby offer the dear lady a free online tutorial service just so long as she carries the promise out :lol:

Just to clear up any confusion, I will stay on this site as a member.

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

Discourse is, with respect to the relation of forces, not merely a surface of inscription, but something that brings about effects.

- Michel Foucault

Brava, Myra!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Your problem, perhaps.

My idea for a Leadership Forum -- which I posed to everyone with access to these pages -- is, in your opinion, "garbage"?

Thank you for the most ringing of endorsements.

In the mean, you keep those "shut up, Charles" arguments coming. They make my point -- and my day.

Ever present,

Charles Drago

Charles,

I do not want to shut you up, thus you have missed my point in much the same way you missed the forum moderators point in not using gutter language in the presence of minors. The 'garbage' came about when you started yet another thread in an effort to bring about attention to a select few who don't know when and when its not appropriate to use bad language. Thats the bottom line!

This whole thing came about over some of you attempting to defend Jack's right to say what ever he damned well wanted to as if because he is 'Jack' - he somehow had earned a right to do what ever he liked in someone else's house. That position is so indefensible that anyone with half a brain and an ounce of moral background isn't going to become involved in such lunacy. Do you think for a minute that Debra Conway needs to have a three forum panel tell her the difference between right and wrong!

None of you jokers who had seen these rules posted had complained or said a thing in defiance about them. It was only when Jack became moderated that you took a position ... a position by the way that is so wrong that you somehow thought you'd strengthen it by posting the 'F' word and then try to pass it off as justified. I can tell you this much ... if someone ever thought they were helping me over my right to freedom of speech by posting the 'F' word on a public forum, then I'd tell them to not bother helping me at all because they haven't the basic common sense to know when they are actually hurting my cause.

Let me ask you this ... Did you ever hear President Kennedy use words like $#it, @$$hole, or the 'F' word in any of his public speeches and if not - just why do you think that was??? If one needs to have others form a panel so to moderate whether or not they have crossed a line or not on a public forum by using such words in clear violation of the forum rules, then it reflects one of two things ... one is that this person never had a good moral standard instilled in them by those responsible for raising them correctly - or that person is just a selfish immoral individual who doesn't have any respect for the rights of others.

I will say this once more because it relates to what is happening here. It is said that the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is that the smart person will eventually know when they are wrong - the stupid person will not! Now I have voiced my opinion and I will let you continue on because there comes a time when one becomes aware that he is not dealing with rational moral individuals if he has to keep trying to find ways to explain why it is wrong for someone to use foul language on a public forum that has minors using it for educational purposes. Like I said before, none of you would attempt to say that garbage in a church in front of your parish, nor would you try and defend such idiocy in a court of law because you would know better. Why you think its defensible here is beyond my comprehension.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

Discourse is, with respect to the relation of forces, not merely a surface of inscription, but something that brings about effects.

- Michel Foucault

Brava, Myra!

Great quote Charles.

Thank you.

Here's just one example of a point that could be made in a newspaper ad, and followed up on via the web, youtube, articles, forums, etc.

Ad>

"Are you aware that in 1978 your own government concluded that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was probably "the result of a conspiracy"?

If not, why not?"

Then it could lead into pointers to additional info and, most important, urge people to help achieve our goals.

That's just one example of a simple historical point that could be made.

When I mention that one fact to people (about the HSCA's conclusion) they're stunned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

Discourse is, with respect to the relation of forces, not merely a surface of inscription, but something that brings about effects.

- Michel Foucault

Brava, Myra!

If that's the sort of fellow you are this should hold your interest for days :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am for action and only action......go MYRA.......something.......anything....proactive......needs to get going...great idea

What do you think of a newspaper ad, strategically timed (Nov 22, or opposite the Bugliosi mini-series for example), to make it clear the JFK murder case is a hot case, never fully investigated, and to tell people how to get further information and what they can do to help realize the clearly stated goals?

Such an ad, e.g., in the NY Times, would be very expensive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to work with others to promote wider access to the truth about the assassination.

Previously i have posted things about the possibility of coordinated promotion of books like Someone Would Have Talked etc on sites like Amazon and mainstream newspaper sites.

Nobody seemed interested, but from the work I did on my own, I found that a little effort, if it was planned stragically, could go a long way. I am currently posting things on twelve different newspaper sites, although none about JFK lately. This method works. The only real time it takes is to register on the sites. After that you can click and paste the same mesage up on twelve sites in two minutes, and get hundreds and often thousands of views. Of course if there were people who frequently responded to these threads the number of views could increase exponentially. To me this seems an obvious course of action, but its seems like so many of the forum just want to talk amongst themselves, as if they have somehow become convinced of the necessary irrelevance of the assassination to the wider population.

Perhaps fatalism is comforting for those unwilling to role up their sleeves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Charles,

I do not want to shut you up, thus you have missed my point in much the same way you missed the forum moderators point in not using gutter language in the presence of minors. The 'garbage' came about when you started yet another thread in an effort to bring about attention to a select few who don't know when and when its not appropriate to use bad language. Thats the bottom line!

This whole thing came about over some of you attempting to defend Jack's right to say what ever he damned well wanted to as if because he is 'Jack' - he somehow had earned a right to do what ever he liked in someone else's house. That position is so indefensible that anyone with half a brain and an ounce of moral background isn't going to become involved in such lunacy. Do you think for a minute that Debra Conway needs to have a three forum panel tell her the difference between right and wrong!

None of you jokers who had seen these rules posted had complained or said a thing in defiance about them. It was only when Jack became moderated that you took a position ... a position by the way that is so wrong that you somehow thought you'd strengthen it by posting the 'F' word and then try to pass it off as justified. I can tell you this much ... if someone ever thought they were helping me over my right to freedom of speech by posting the 'F' word on a public forum, then I'd tell them to not bother helping me at all because they haven't the basic common sense to know when they are actually hurting my cause.

Let me ask you this ... Did you ever hear President Kennedy use words like $#it, @$$hole, or the 'F' word in any of his public speeches and if not - just why do you think that was??? If one needs to have others form a panel so to moderate whether or not they have crossed a line or not on a public forum by using such words in clear violation of the forum rules, then it reflects one of two things ... one is that this person never had a good moral standard instilled in them by those responsible for raising them correctly - or that person is just a selfish immoral individual who doesn't have any respect for the rights of others.

I will say this once more because it relates to what is happening here. It is said that the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is that the smart person will eventually know when they are wrong - the stupid person will not! Now I have voiced my opinion and I will let you continue on because there comes a time when one becomes aware that he is not dealing with rational moral individuals if he has to keep trying to find ways to explain why it is wrong for someone to use foul language on a public forum that has minors using it for educational purposes. Like I said before, none of you would attempt to say that garbage in a church in front of your parish, nor would you try and defend such idiocy in a court of law because you would know better. Why you think its defensible here is beyond my comprehension.

Bill Miller[/b]

My Dear Mr. Miller,

You refer to me as an "irrational ... immoral ... joker."

You expect -- not without good cause, I regret to note -- that your attacks will be tolerated by the same moderators who take Jack to task for his use of "obscene" language.

You and yours no longer are of any interest to me whatsoever. God bless you.

Now go away.

Charles Drago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...