Conspiracy against this Forum

[Bernice Moore]

I have received an email from Mr. Simkin accusing me of being part of a "conspiracy"

to destroy his forum. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have been a member

and supporter from the beginning. He has been terribly misled by someone. He invited

me to join, and personally set up an account for me. But it is his forum and clearly he

may administer it as he chooses.

Jack White

The same email was sent to every member of the forum. It did not accuse you personally of being involved in such a conspiracy.

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

John:

I think that Jack can be forgiven for misinterpreting your message. Mine started out with "Bernice Moore " and finished with "John Simkin" -- along with the use of "you" in the text. Apparently others did as well.......It is understandable.....IMO.....

This below is the email message I received......

Please note also, the line, where Gentlemen, it states.........

What they do not have the freedom to do is to make personal attacks on other members.

[/b]

Important Information ( The Education Forum )

Monday, August 25, 2008 9:29 AM

From:

"The Education Forum" <andrew@dtc.kent.sch.uk>

Add sender to Contacts

To:

bmoore

Bernice Moore,

I have deleted the thread “Death of a Great Idea, when bad moderation kills a forum”. I will also delete any other thread that attacks the administrators or moderators of this forum.

It is my opinion that a small group of members are intent in severely damaging this forum before they go off to form their own forum. I am not going to allow them to destroy what I believe is important.

I have attempted to run this form in a way that would provide the maximum of freedom for members. It was the way I tried to teach my classes in school. However, I did realize as a teacher that some groups were too immature to benefit from this approach (this had nothing to do with age).

Most members have responded well to this approach. However, a small minority have always caused problems by their attacks on other members. Recently, when moderators tried to protect those being attacked, they have themselves been the target of their venom. So much so, that they have resigned from the job.

One of the ways that this group has been “rebelling” is to remove the link to their biography. Unless this is put back the member’s posts will be made invisible and they will be placed on moderation. Eventually, all their posts will be deleted from the forum. The same goes for those who do not have an identifiable photograph as an avatar.

This forum receives a large number of page views. It is an excellent resource for people who wish to publicize their opinions, books, websites, etc. because of its search-engine ranking. Members are still free to use it in this way. What they do not have the freedom to do is to make personal attacks on other members.

If you do this in the future, you will be immediately dealt with. They can then go away and talk amongst themselves, convinced that they are victims of a CIA conspiracy.

John Simkin

-------------------------------------

The Education Forum Statistics:

-------------------------------------

Registered Users: 1830

Total Posts: 147374

Busiest Time: 1014 users were online on 23rd August 2006 - 01:44 PM

-------------------------------------

B.........

Edited August 26, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Guest]

Thank you to the enormous number of forum members who have e-mailed expressing their support for John's recent actions and expressing their approval for how the forum is currently run.

[Dixie Dea]

Now, I feel compelled to also speak out. I also received John's email and felt rather offended about it. I had made an assumption that I was, for some reason being singled out, as a part of a specific group. That is even though, I had not only refrained from any remarks in this current 2-3 week issue.I do not even recall ever posting in this Political Conspiracy Forum and in fact, rarely even come here. I am not into these Conspiracy issues and really have no opinion on most of them.

I am involved in JFK research only and that is the forum of my interest. However, just as everyone else lately, I have been reading these current broo-haws because they do always with human nature, seem to draw a crowd. Even so, I felt no compulsion to voice any opinion I have no idea who is or isn't considered the so-called culprits of this particular forum.

So, needless to say, I was offended by the email...like why in the world did John think I did something wrong? But then after discussing it with a couple of other members, I did realize that the email had been sent to all the members, so I did not feel so mistakingly singled out then. It does not matter to me, if John has received many words of encouragement in regard to that email.....I know of others that regarded it just as I had.

I can't speak for Jack, but I am able to understand why he believed as he did...since I had felt something similar.

But John explained in this thread, about that email, which was quite clear....and to me.... so, end of my own concerns. But, there are a few who took the big opportunity to apply much ridicule towards Jack and it seems to be continuing., with all the cheap shots. Is this not just what one of the issues, that email was all about, in the first place. The bad things stated about co-members of this forum! Is Jack the only one that is not entitled to express his thoughts, beliefs and opinions, whether you or I, or anyone agrees or disagrees with him? Is he not entitled to express his offense at that email, feeling it was being directed at him? He even pointed out his reason for feeling as he did.

For all we know, now that he sees it was not directed at him, perhaps he now even agrees with what John stated in the email, just as I now agree with it....yet he continues to received all this ridiculous and unnecessary ridicule. He got the mssage, with out all this!!

I do realize the additional concern of Jack not adding a link to his Bio as is expected of everyone else. I have no comment about that...except that is a matter between the Admin. (perhaps through the Mods) and Jack. I am not privy to whatever reason for non-compliance that Jack might have...but neither does the other members.

I did notice that Jack has added a bio of sorts, in his signature area....which actually says more then a few other's actual Bios that i have read. I have also noticed a couple of others who have added a bio in their signature area and they are certainly not being so-attacked.

I have met Jack and had converstaions with him and regard him as a friend. I also have met some who can be regarded as Non-Conspiracists as well as being regarded as LN's. I happen to also like them. My personal criteria does not reflect anyone's own opinion, theories or beliefs. Primarily, I just don't care about that and as most everyone that knows me realzies, I do attempt to get along with everyone. Yet, if attacked, then maybe I will bark back...and maybe I can speak up when I see someone being overly rediculed....or especialy when I am seeing an indication of attempting to drive someone away because of their non-conforming beliefs.

From what I am seeing on this thread, exactly who is continuing to pursue this matter..... not Jack! And...Jack was not the only one that felt offended and neither was I, the only other one.

_________

Dixie

[Mark Vernon]

I think Jack is overreacting...I didnt feel that email was directed to me personally but thankful I got it because I had forgotten about this place...

All forums of any size have these kind of issues periodically....the disgruntled poster who forms a clique and tries to start a revolt, and wind up forming a new forum of their own who then turn on eachother and spontaneously combust...lol...not saying you are doing that Jack! Dont shoot. Its just an observation from 10+ years on message boards in general. A solid admin. and mod base easily withstands these, and continues on...I believe the higher ups on this board are above average maturity wise and give the respect they get.

Back to my lurk mode for awhile.

[Mark Vernon]

Now, I feel compelled to also speak out. I also received John's email and felt rather offended about it. I had made an assumption that I was, for some reason being singled out, as a part of a specific group. That is even though, I had not only refrained from any remarks in this current 2-3 week issue.I do not even recall ever posting in this Political Conspiracy Forum and in fact, rarely even come here. I am not into these Conspiracy issues and really have no opinion on most of them.

I am involved in JFK research only and that is the forum of my interest. However, just as everyone else lately, I have been reading these current broo-haws because they do always with human nature, seem to draw a crowd. Even so, I felt no compulsion to voice any opinion I have no idea who is or isn't considered the so-called culprits of this particular forum.

So, needless to say, I was offended by the email...like why in the world did John think I did something wrong? But then after discussing it with a couple of other members, I did realize that the email had been sent to all the members, so I did not feel so mistakingly singled out then. It does not matter to me, if John has received many words of encouragement in regard to that email.....I know of others that regarded it just as I had.

I can't speak for Jack, but I am able to understand why he believed as he did...since I had felt something similar.

But John explained in this thread, about that email, which was quite clear....and to me.... so, end of my own concerns. But, there are a few who took the big opportunity to apply much ridicule towards Jack and it seems to be continuing., with all the cheap shots. Is this not just what one of the issues, that email was all about, in the first place. The bad things stated about co-members of this forum! Is Jack the only one that is not entitled to express his thoughts, beliefs and opinions, whether you or I, or anyone agrees or disagrees with him? Is he not entitled to express his offense at that email, feeling it was being directed at him? He even pointed out his reason for feeling as he did.

For all we know, now that he sees it was not directed at him, perhaps he now even agrees with what John stated in the email, just as I now agree with it....yet he continues to received all this ridiculous and unnecessary ridicule. He got the mssage, with out all this!!

I do realize the additional concern of Jack not adding a link to his Bio as is expected of everyone else. I have no comment about that...except that is a matter between the Admin. (perhaps through the Mods) and Jack. I am not privy to whatever reason for non-compliance that Jack might have...but neither does the other members.

I did notice that Jack has added a bio of sorts, in his signature area....which actually says more then a few other's actual Bios that i have read. I have also noticed a couple of others who have added a bio in their signature area and they are certainly not being so-attacked.

I have met Jack and had converstaions with him and regard him as a friend. I also have met some who can be regarded as Non-Conspiracists as well as being regarded as LN's. I happen to also like them. My personal criteria does not reflect anyone's own opinion, theories or beliefs. Primarily, I just don't care about that and as most everyone that knows me realzies, I do attempt to get along with everyone. Yet, if attacked, then maybe I will bark back...and maybe I can speak up when I see someone being overly rediculed....or especialy when I am seeing an indication of attempting to drive someone away because of their non-conforming beliefs.

From what I am seeing on this thread, exactly who is continuing to pursue this matter..... not Jack! And...Jack was not the only one that felt offended and neither was I, the only other one.

_________

Dixie

JHC....you have 200 posts in over 4 years on this site.... get over yourself. There was nothing offensive in that email...in fact, it was one of the most respectful and informative/intelligent emails I have ever received from a site administrator. Don't take yourself so seriously....I don't.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Mark Vernon

[Dixie Dea]

Mr Vernon...you are apparently responding to my post, although I don't know who JHC is. Yes, I do seem to be serious, because i am serious.

What does it matter if I have posted only one time or 5,000 times in the past four years? To get over myself? Don't you feel that we all take things differntly at times...sometimes only depending on our mood at the time.

Perhaps I wasn't too clear that my initial assumption had been erroneous. I fully do acknowledge that fact. I also need to be more clear that I have no complaint whatsoever, about the content of John's email and even believe it was an action that was needed.

Is your reply an attempt at an intimidation? If so, I wish no conflict with anyone, on any matter!

One other point, I am hardly a newcomer to JFK Research forums. I am a Member of several JFK forums and have been for many years...so I am not unknown, even though we seem to be unfamilar with each other. I am quite familiar with the workings of forums and their various Administrators. I also do believe at iimes a different action needs to be taken I also have no problem with that.

__________

Dixie

Edited August 26, 2008 by Dixie Dea

[Mark Vernon]

To be offended by something that clearly has nothing to do with you is what made me say what I said...you are a very infrequent contributer to this forum, post counts do not lie. That is not to ridicule you for it, just stating an obvious fact. I am on forums that people make 20-100 posts per day at, that would laugh until they cried if I told them someone with 200 posts over 4+ years felt offended by a generic type of email from a site administrator. I am only stating my opinion of course, and while it doesn't have my usual sense of humor injected, I meant no harm or ill in the reply.

[David G. Healy]

To be offended by something that clearly has nothing to do with you is what made me say what I said...you are a very infrequent contributer to this forum, post counts do not lie. That is not to ridicule you for it, just stating an obvious fact. I am on forums that people make 20-100 posts per day at, that would laugh until they cried if I told them someone with 200 posts over 4+ years felt offended by a generic type of email from a site administrator. I am only stating my opinion of course, and while it doesn't have my usual sense of humor injected, I meant no harm or ill in the reply.

Mr. Vernon,

I suppose if I told you Ms. Dixie probably has well over 7,000 posts spread over a few JFK assassination research forums (public and private) you wouldn't be offended would you? One of the leading women JFK assassination researchers on the net, I might add.

You've managed to scribble out a few posts here and you've already found yourself in a wee-bit of controversy.... Now, if you have JFK related material needing review or if you'd like, strut your stuff in a few assassination related threads, please do -- we await being bolled over with your brilliance...

Carry on sir!

Your's in research...

p.s. do you have a relative named Bob Vernon? I hope so.

Edited August 26, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Bernice Moore]

I have deleted the thread “Death of a Great Idea, when bad moderation kills a forum”. I will also delete any other thread that attacks the administrators or moderators of this forum.

It is my opinion that a small group of members are intent in severely damaging this forum before they go off to form their own forum. I am not going to allow them to destroy what I believe is important.

I have attempted to run this form in a way that would provide the maximum of freedom for members. It was the way I tried to teach my classes in school. However, I did realize as a teacher that some groups were too immature to benefit from this approach (this had nothing to do with age).

Most members have responded well to this approach. However, a small minority have always caused problems by their attacks on other members. Recently, when moderators tried to protect those being attacked, they have themselves been the target of their venom. So much so, that they have resigned from the job.

One of the ways that this group has been “rebelling” is to remove the link to their biography. Unless this is put back the member’s posts will be made invisible and they will be placed on moderation. Eventually, all their posts will be deleted from the forum. The same goes for those who do not have an identifiable photograph as an avatar.

This forum receives a large number of page views. It is an excellent resource for people who wish to publicize their opinions, books, websites, etc. because of its search-engine ranking. Members are still free to use it in this way. What they do not have the freedom to do is to make personal attacks on other members. If you do this in the future, you will be immediately dealt with. They can then go away and talk amongst themselves, convinced that they are victims of a CIA conspiracy.

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

Quote : John Simkin .."What they do not have the freedom to do is to make personal attacks on other members. If you do this in the future, you will be immediately dealt with."

Quote : Vernon : ""JHC....you have 200 posts in over 4 years on this site.... get over yourself"".

John : Awaiting to see your "immediately dealt with".....??

B..........

Edited August 26, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hi,

I can understand the ‘admins’ wanting to set certain rules for their forum, I can understand the ‘moderators’ trying to enforce those rules, but what I can’t understand is just how many of the members seem to be making a big deal about it.

Does it really bother you so much that Jack White doesn’t have a bio link?

I know it is forum rules and I have no problem with them, but please let the ‘admins’ and ‘mods’ resolve this problem.

<SNIP>

Thanks - Steve

Good post. I agree with much of what you say. Any cursory reading of this thread, from the beginning can see the problem that exists.

Of course, some will argue (and maybe even believe, though I doubt it) that they are concerned about forum rules and that is the only reason they repeatedly and continuously hit the report button and make a huge issue of 'the rules'.

This isn't limited to either 'side'.

The truth is, "the rules" are being used in a childish game of oneupmanship to irritate and annoy - members, admins, mods - generally everyone - sometimes, but rarely, even annoying the intended target.

Mark,

I find, Dixie's concerns are shared by many folk. I shan't defend her, suffice to say she has contributed a great deal of quality in those posts and is a highly respected member of the forum. It does seem you've made a strange call based on a stranger metric.

Unless it is a person's job posting 20-100 times a day in most functional forums seems excessive. I know a lot of forums where that would be considered spamming. I also know a lot where a forum is no more than an instant messaging tool. Though I'll not make your mistake and rush to a judgement...

[Mark Vernon]

To be offended by something that clearly has nothing to do with you is what made me say what I said...you are a very infrequent contributer to this forum, post counts do not lie. That is not to ridicule you for it, just stating an obvious fact. I am on forums that people make 20-100 posts per day at, that would laugh until they cried if I told them someone with 200 posts over 4+ years felt offended by a generic type of email from a site administrator. I am only stating my opinion of course, and while it doesn't have my usual sense of humor injected, I meant no harm or ill in the reply.

Mr. Vernon,

I suppose if I told you Ms. Dixie probably has well over 7,000 posts spread over a few JFK assassination research forums (public and private) you wouldn't be offended would you? One of the leading women JFK assassination researchers on the net, I might add.

You've managed to scribble out a few posts here and you've already found yourself in a wee-bit of controversy.... Now, if you have JFK related material needing review or if you'd like, strut your stuff in a few assassination related threads, please do -- we await being bolled over with your brilliance...

Carry on sir!

Your's in research...

p.s. do you have a relative named Bob Vernon? I hope so.

Do you have a relative named Patrick Healey? Hes a private investigator.

Nice of you to play the white knight, im sure its appreciated. But whatever you are going for, missed. My stated opinion that Ms. Dixie is an infrequent contributer to this site still stands, I don't really care how many posts she has made at other forums, we are talking about THIS forum. Your attempt to belittle my infrequent scribbles is ironic as well as humorous.

Touche.

[David G. Healy]

To be offended by something that clearly has nothing to do with you is what made me say what I said...you are a very infrequent contributer to this forum, post counts do not lie. That is not to ridicule you for it, just stating an obvious fact. I am on forums that people make 20-100 posts per day at, that would laugh until they cried if I told them someone with 200 posts over 4+ years felt offended by a generic type of email from a site administrator. I am only stating my opinion of course, and while it doesn't have my usual sense of humor injected, I meant no harm or ill in the reply.

Mr. Vernon,

I suppose if I told you Ms. Dixie probably has well over 7,000 posts spread over a few JFK assassination research forums (public and private) you wouldn't be offended would you? One of the leading women JFK assassination researchers on the net, I might add.

You've managed to scribble out a few posts here and you've already found yourself in a wee-bit of controversy.... Now, if you have JFK related material needing review or if you'd like, strut your stuff in a few assassination related threads, please do -- we await being bolled over with your brilliance...

Carry on sir!

Your's in research...

p.s. do you have a relative named Bob Vernon? I hope so.

Do you have a relative named Patrick Healey? Hes a private investigator.

Nice of you to play the white knight, im sure its appreciated. But whatever you are going for, missed. My stated opinion that Ms. Dixie is an infrequent contributer to this site still stands, I don't really care how many posts she has made at other forums, we are talking about THIS forum. Your attempt to belittle my infrequent scribbles is ironic as well as humorous.

Touche.

no touche, son.... in political conspiracy debate your gonna have to do better than that, can't sneak in through the back door. Also, did you read how my last name is spelled, sir? Gallop'in Bill Miller has the same problem you do, my last name in particular. So keep up the good front, sir.... Sure Bob Vernon isn't a relative?

[Mark Vernon]

My apologies Mr. Healy, I never intentionally mispell anothers name...though I have to admit not to know what you mean by I have to do better than that in political conspiracy debate. If you are looking to joust me after every post I make here , you are free to do so, but don't expect me to respond in any timely fashion. I'm here to spend some of my recreation time reading topics and opinions that are of interest. If you have a problem with me personally, take it up with me in PM.

[Guest]

I would like to query the logic behind your signature Mark Vernon.

"To believe there are no conspiracies, is more insane than to believe everything is a conspiracy."

Surely you meant to say; "To believe there are no conspiracies, is just as insane than to believe everything is a conspiracy."

Let us hope that this forum becomes a meeting place for the very sane very soon.

[Dixie Dea]

David H and Gary L...thanks so much for the kind words!

Mark,

What am I to think of you, even though I had zero knowledge of you, previous to your response to me. I believe that I did state that I don't recall ever posting in this particular forum, although I possibly did so a very long time ago. I only rarely even lurk here in this forum. But, you are right that I have not been much of a poster in the JFK forum in the past four years. I just choose to read, rather then post. On the other hand, I do find it extremely annoying to see someone posting as you indicate, in an over abundance amount of times per day. However, I do believe that is their perogative and not mine. Nothing to concern myself with anyway and I most certainly see no reason to attempt to compete. with anyone in that manner. I also do not wish to pursue this matter any further with you. It is wholly unimportant to the real issues at hand.

_________

Dixie