Guest Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I think if a posters motivation motivation is to obstruct a thread; to stop certain infomation from being discussed; to block per se discussion; to cast aspersions on the information, poster, referred to websites and sources of information without substantive reason; to meerly debunk and naysay; to divert a thread, etc. then questioning and pointing-out this perception of intent is germain - and nothing could be more so here! Interesting views Peter. But surely if they had been place Jack's strange opening gambit in this perculiar thread would have been in breach. Also if we are to revisit terms of use and forum rules I think it would be apposite to extend the regulations to acceptable/unacceptable use of pm and e-mail systems embedded in the forum. I would welcome your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Just a reminder to everyone:(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word "xxxx" is banned from use on the forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243 I think it is time to debate, question and reword that highlighted statement. I think if a posters motivation [or percieved/apparent/REPEATED] motivation is to obstruct a thread; to stop certain infomation from being discussed; to block per se discussion; to cast aspersions on the information, poster, referred to websites and sources of information without substantive reason; to meerly debunk and naysay; to divert a thread, etc. then questioning and pointing-out this perception of intent is germain - and nothing could be more so here! Another problem is the 'isolation' of events in a post thread. Some of us have memories and some of us have long been involved in this kind of research and the resistance it generates. Jack has been attacked many times on Forums and even physically attacked in his own home. He and I and others know of witnesses and occassionaly researchers killed and/or threatened; stories in the media stopped; thwarted; changed; countered by powerful forces; we know and can often recognize certain patterns of behavior that raise red-flags..... Perhaps some of us who have had personal experiences and had friends who've had personal experiences with professional agents of disinformation are overly sensitive and alert...but they do exist and should not IMO be welcome here, unless they want to identify themselves [which they never ever do]. A 'don't ask - don't tell' policy here will not work and IMO has gone a long way to the breakdown of a once much more productive and well-attended Forum. A person's motivation if not to advance toward an honest approximation of the truth, without blocking other's ability to have their say should not be allowed. Nor, IMO, should those who follow the patterns of pest; annoyance; hatemonger; character assasins; blockers of threads; disruptors; provacateurs be long tolerated. Often very telling are those who rarely start their own threads on their 'take' on issues - but spend all their time blocking and trying to muck-up others with the opposing viewpoint. Gives it all away, IMO> It makes sense that Peter would want to eliminate that rule because he is the member who most consistently violates it. Patriotism might well be “the last refuge of a scoundrel" but ad homs and changing the subject are the favorite ‘refuges’ of the losing party in a debate*. When unable to refute points Tink, Craig, Matthew, Kevin, Evan etc and I make Peter, Terry, David and Jack (among others) choose to ‘attack the messenger’ or make off topic posts (also supposedly not permitted here). I doubt anyone is paid to post here. I’m not, though I wish I was - I could use some extra cash! But even if I/we were that would be irrelevant if those who disagree with us can’t show that we’re wrong. He and Jack attack much more often then they are attacked here and all evidence indicates that the naked man who attacked Jack in front of his home and stole his car was someone with mental problems not an NWO agent. * Interesting though how often truthers appeal to “patriotism”, Johnson was quite prophetic http://tiny.cc/patriots4truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 If what people say is false, they why can't other refute it? Instead they have to attack the poster, not the post. Anyway - if you think the rule needs changing Peter, then start a thread and let's get a discussion on the matter going. When people have had their say, John & Andy can consider changing the rules. Until that time, however, the rules applies to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) If what people say is false, they why can't other refute it? Instead they have to attack the poster, not the post.Anyway - if you think the rule needs changing Peter, then start a thread and let's get a discussion on the matter going. When people have had their say, John & Andy can consider changing the rules. Until that time, however, the rules applies to everyone. knock-knock.... Hi Evan.... "When people have had their say...", ah, isn't this about procedure, etc? What is this conversation doing in the middle of 'Me and my shadows' thread? Some thread stealing going on here, Evan? And here's a bit of news for you, I suspect the number of posts to this board during the past few months is going down (by as much as 30%), certainly the number of active CT posters 'posting' here is going down. Thread views I suspect the same -- down... no new members... That cuts website revenue..... Which means THE rules aren't making for *happy campers* -- which in turn means, old hands are moving on to more, er, confrontational places? Never fear though... the graveyard of JFK assassination related websites, is vast... Moderate on..... Edited July 2, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 If what people say is false, they why can't other refute it? Instead they have to attack the poster, not the post.Anyway - if you think the rule needs changing Peter, then start a thread and let's get a discussion on the matter going. When people have had their say, John & Andy can consider changing the rules. Until that time, however, the rules applies to everyone. knock-knock.... Hi Evan.... "When people have had their say...", ah, isn't this about procedure, etc? What is this conversation doing in the middle of 'Me and my shadows' thread? Some thread stealing going on here, Evan? And here's a bit of news for you, I suspect the number of posts to this board during the past few months is going down (by as much as 30%), certainly the number of active CT posters 'posting' here is going down. Thread views I suspect the same -- down... no new members... That cuts website revenue..... Which means THE rules aren't making for *happy campers* -- which in turn means, old hands are moving on to more, er, confrontational places? Never fear though... the graveyard of JFK assassination related websites, is vast... Moderate on..... Traffic on the forum is pretty robust. As ever a great deal more traffic goes to educational areas rather than CT ones. Membership is by invitation only and is controlled by John. The forum doesn't and never has made money. All is as well as ever it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 If what people say is false, they why can't other refute it? Instead they have to attack the poster, not the post.Anyway - if you think the rule needs changing Peter, then start a thread and let's get a discussion on the matter going. When people have had their say, John & Andy can consider changing the rules. Until that time, however, the rules applies to everyone. knock-knock.... Hi Evan.... "When people have had their say...", ah, isn't this about procedure, etc? What is this conversation doing in the middle of 'Me and my shadows' thread? Some thread stealing going on here, Evan? And here's a bit of news for you, I suspect the number of posts to this board during the past few months is going down (by as much as 30%), certainly the number of active CT posters 'posting' here is going down. Thread views I suspect the same -- down... no new members... That cuts website revenue..... Which means THE rules aren't making for *happy campers* -- which in turn means, old hands are moving on to more, er, confrontational places? Never fear though... the graveyard of JFK assassination related websites, is vast... Moderate on..... I'm suggesting that discussion on motivations and that rule be on a thread dedicated to that topic, where people can make their opinions know. Since Peter suggested a rule change might be warranted, he would be the logical choice to start the thread with his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I think a look back at what happened with JS handling of [damn drawing a blank on his name....lives in FL and was YAF and very interested in Castro did it view of Dallas....help me with his name...] In fact, it was the problem JS had with him that I believe made him decide to get moderators. Tim Gratz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 However, I will point out that some of the stated reasons JS first put him on moderation and then basicly removed him from the Forum are now being done by other persons - who for the moment shall be nameless IIRC Tim was booted for threatening to sue the forum (after being suspended and readmitted for the same offense). The moderator system however was put in place to combat “insulting” or “offensive comments”*. The members who most commonly make them here are Bill, Craig, Terry, David and you. The 1st two haven't posted here in a while so currently such behavior is limited to you and your 'camp'. * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9256 Posts 1, 5, 94 and 160 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 If Jack doesn't mind it being discussed here, then that is fine... but I'd recommend a thread title change so people know the subject we are discussing: a rule change, specifically motivations of posters. The current thread title doesn't let other posters know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 If Jack doesn't mind it being discussed here, then that is fine... but I'd recommend a thread title change so people know the subject we are discussing: a rule change, specifically motivations of posters. The current thread title doesn't let other posters know that. The idea of debating a major rule change in a thread dedicated to completely unrelated topic is absurd, it increases the chances that many members will never see the discussion let alone participate in it. Ideally this should be debated in a pinned thread in the JFK forum (which gets a lot more traffic) with pinned threads here, and any other subforums the administrators and moderators deem appropriate, pointing to it. A good first step would be asking Andy and especially John if they would consider changing the rule otherwise the thread would be a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Mon Dieu!....the world must be coming to an end [soon], as I agree with Len.... Holy cow! I'm off to whitewash the windows and stock up on tinned fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now