Conspiracy against this Forum

[Bernice Moore]

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...

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

Gary Loughran Aug 26 2008, 09:46 PM

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.

Gary

If your words, are meant as an implication in anyway, that includes myself,

Quote : Gary :""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'.

I want to make it Very clear to you, and All, that I have never hit the report button......

I have made one complaint and to John Simkin directly, some years back.....long before any rules were implimented on this forum....

I am asking that John now stand by his words...not mine.....That he stated in the email he had sent out.....to all members.....

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."

B.....

[Craig Lamson]

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...

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

Gary Loughran Aug 26 2008, 09:46 PM

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.

Gary

If your words, are meant as an implication in anyway, that includes myself,

Quote : Gary :""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'.

I want to make it Very clear to you, and All, that I have never hit the report button......

I have made one complaint and to John Simkin directly, some years back.....long before any rules were implimented on this forum....

I am asking that John now stand by his words...not mine.....That he stated in the email he had sent out.....to all members.....

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."

B.....

EXACTLY WHO has been attacked in this thread?

[Don Jeffries]

I want to say, first of all, that I think John Simkin runs a great forum here. It's a wonderful resource and I value it very much. It's also certainly his right to run this forum the way he wants, and to ask that we all abide by the rules he sets. I agree with Bernice and Dixie about Jack being understandably confused about the email we all received. While I wasn't offended by the email, I also don't consider myself part of any "rebel" group here, and possibly Jack might have felt that he is looked upon as a "rebel," and figured the email was only meant for those who might fall into that category.

Gary made an excellent point about members being excessively concerned about the rules. My view is that the moderators should handle this, and the rest of us shouldn't be getting worked up over someone's signature or avator. One rule I feel is violated frequently is the one against personal attacks. Although the definition of "attack" is open to interpretation, I think a lot of posts are too mean-spirited in tone. But, I realize this is not my call, and everyone has the right to express themselves. If something is over the line, I trust the moderators to handle it. That being said, my own opinion is that Jack White takes a lot more abuse here, from several members, than he hands out. In fact, while it is a valid criticism to point out that Jack often is overly sensitive and perhaps almost as paranoid as me, he never resorts to the sort of nastiness that is directed at him. Again, jmho, and I readily admit that I'm a great admirer of Jack's and agree with him most of the time, so I'm hardly unbiased.

Mark, I don't believe we are familiar with each other, but I think if you go back and re-read what you wrote to Dixie, maybe you will realize how she was bound to be offended by it. And ridiculing her for her number of posts- what does that have to do with anything she has to say? Are you suggesting that forums be ruled by those with the most number of posts? I remember Dixie from Rich's old JFK Research Forum, as well as Lancer. She's a very polite lady who treats other posters with respect. Again, just my two cents worth.

Now, having said that, I think we all need to develop thicker skins. Forums are about debate and disagreement; if you think another poster is ridiculous, or a disinfo agent, or mentally unbalanced, simply ignore their posts.

[Mark Stapleton]

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

A gratuitous insult to all who have hitherto posted here.

Hard to believe, really.

[Evan Burton]

Just how many times has Jack done this - make an incorrect assumption leading to a baseless accusation? I've been the target several times.

Evan do you mean in research, or the forum issues? I would hope just the forum issues so as to have a manageable figure.

Oh, Forum issues. I've discussed Jack's research elsewhere.

[Guest]

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

A gratuitous insult to all who have hitherto posted here.

Hard to believe, really.

Are you suggesting that they are all insane or are you just lifting sentences out of my posts out of context for amusement?

[Evan Burton]

Nice post, Don. I would would alter just one thing:

"...if you think another poster is ridiculous, or a disinfo agent, or mentally unbalanced, simply prove to the lurkers just how wrong their posts are."

Just my opinion. Cheers!

I want to say, first of all, that I think John Simkin runs a great forum here. It's a wonderful resource and I value it very much. It's also certainly his right to run this forum the way he wants, and to ask that we all abide by the rules he sets. I agree with Bernice and Dixie about Jack being understandably confused about the email we all received. While I wasn't offended by the email, I also don't consider myself part of any "rebel" group here, and possibly Jack might have felt that he is looked upon as a "rebel," and figured the email was only meant for those who might fall into that category.

Gary made an excellent point about members being excessively concerned about the rules. My view is that the moderators should handle this, and the rest of us shouldn't be getting worked up over someone's signature or avator. One rule I feel is violated frequently is the one against personal attacks. Although the definition of "attack" is open to interpretation, I think a lot of posts are too mean-spirited in tone. But, I realize this is not my call, and everyone has the right to express themselves. If something is over the line, I trust the moderators to handle it. That being said, my own opinion is that Jack White takes a lot more abuse here, from several members, than he hands out. In fact, while it is a valid criticism to point out that Jack often is overly sensitive and perhaps almost as paranoid as me, he never resorts to the sort of nastiness that is directed at him. Again, jmho, and I readily admit that I'm a great admirer of Jack's and agree with him most of the time, so I'm hardly unbiased.

Mark, I don't believe we are familiar with each other, but I think if you go back and re-read what you wrote to Dixie, maybe you will realize how she was bound to be offended by it. And ridiculing her for her number of posts- what does that have to do with anything she has to say? Are you suggesting that forums be ruled by those with the most number of posts? I remember Dixie from Rich's old JFK Research Forum, as well as Lancer. She's a very polite lady who treats other posters with respect. Again, just my two cents worth.

Now, having said that, I think we all need to develop thicker skins. Forums are about debate and disagreement; if you think another poster is ridiculous, or a disinfo agent, or mentally unbalanced, simply ignore their posts.

[Mark Vernon]

Now that I have a better grasp of whats going on here I will comment further.

The administration of this forum is fine, its the moderators who are over-moderating. Perhaps the admins should review who is capable of unbiased moderation, and who isn't. I have been around here a short time and can recognize who should immediately be removed from this position.

If my last post that clearly debunked an attack on me for my opinion is not restored, you will no longer have the ability to moderate any future posts....there wont be any.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Gary

If your words, are meant as an implication in anyway, that includes myself,

Quote : Gary :""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'.

I want to make it Very clear to you, and All, that I have never hit the report button......

B.....

Hi Bernice,

You never came to mind at all during that post.

I would have quite the opposite opinion of you than anything you felt was implied. I always enjoy your extensive photo collection and other posts.

My point is that some members have taken to using the rules issue as a weapon, this, I feel, is against the spirit of the forum and the very same rules governing it. I can't believe that all the 'rule baiting' of late is through any genuine concern for the rules either. This insidious use of rules is not something I approve of.

Gary

[Craig Lamson]

Now that I have a better grasp of whats going on here I will comment further.

The administration of this forum is fine, its the moderators who are over-moderating. Perhaps the admins should review who is capable of unbiased moderation, and who isn't. I have been around here a short time and can recognize who should immediately be removed from this position.

If my last post that clearly debunked an attack on me for my opinion is not restored, you will no longer have the ability to moderate any future posts....there wont be any.

Who EXACTLY is Mark Vernon? IS he REALLY who he claims to be? As evidenced by his posts he appears to be posting for, or as someone else or for a group of people. The date of recennt postings to this forum raises many questions that deserve an answer.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Now that I have a better grasp of whats going on here I will comment further.

The administration of this forum is fine, its the moderators who are over-moderating. Perhaps the admins should review who is capable of unbiased moderation, and who isn't. I have been around here a short time and can recognize who should immediately be removed from this position.

If my last post that clearly debunked an attack on me for my opinion is not restored, you will no longer have the ability to moderate any future posts....there wont be any.

While I agree Evan (or which ever moderator it was) made a bad call I see no evidence he is biased. I thought he made a bad call when he set another Apollo Hoax debunker, Gavin Stone's post to invisible. He put Craig on moderation and voted not to do so with Peter Lemkin he has rebuked me and erased my comments when I he thought I stepped over the line.

Quite odd though that on a forum dedicated to discussing and debating controversial topics Mark would consider Kevin’s post an “attack on” him. Does he consider rebutting his points an attack?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=153644

[Mark Stapleton]

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

A gratuitous insult to all who have hitherto posted here.

Hard to believe, really.

Are you suggesting that they are all insane or are you just lifting sentences out of my posts out of context for amusement?

Ah, it appears I read the thread in haste and took your post out of context Andy.

My apologies. Damn these noisy, crowded internet cafes.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest]

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

A gratuitous insult to all who have hitherto posted here.

Hard to believe, really.

Are you suggesting that they are all insane or are you just lifting sentences out of my posts out of context for amusement?

Ah, it appears I read the thread in haste and took your post out of context Andy.

My apologies. Damn these noisy, crowded internet cafes.

Apology accepted.

In future I can only suggest you try and pay more attention to the contents of messages before venting your spleen in response.

[Julie Ditolla]

Hi all - I guess that this is as good a time as any to update my bio and link - I haven't been in for a long time, but got the e-mail and read it as BENIGN...I saw no persecutorial evidence.

So I'm "updated" for any of my friends and contacts - those who may want the info.

I do get the weekly updates and read those...I just haven't taken time out to post recently.

Hi there, John S, Andy W. - I hope things are going well despite the fact that there are apparently some buzzkills who are taking themselves way too seriously.

Bene!

P.S. I have seen a couple of 2 hour TV specials here in the States about the JFK assassination - it appears that our FCC controlled TV stations are trying to "convince us" that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for the "magic bullet" theory - and seem to go to astounding lengths with experiments conducted in Australia (where the first news stories about the assassination appeared, before it had even happened here in the States), in order to prove that LHO did the dirty deed. Where is he now that we REALLY need him? lol