Jump to content
The Education Forum

Attention Simkin and all moderators


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Regarding FETZER/BURTON APOLLO DEBATE thread started on JFK and moved

to Conspiracies Forum...

Simkin and all moderators:

Burton is acting both as participant and moderator on this thread, ruling

that I will be put on moderation if I continue to post Apollo studies for

Burton and Fetzer to discuss. This is DESPICABLE. Burton should be

censured for this outrageous behavior. He is baffled by the studies I posted,

so he deleted them and threatened me. Outrageous!

My studies cannot be discussed unless I am allowed to post them. So to avoid discussing

my studies, Burton deleted them. He should be overruled.

Jack

He threatened me if I repost any of the studies. Well here you are, hot shot!

post-667-036482200 1282065715_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack is of course correct. Burton has been hassling me for months to debate the moon landings. When I agree--with the

implicit understanding that Jack will post the studies of his that I designate, because he is good at that and I am not--

Burton pulls an authoritarian stunt by denying Jack access. It is absurd that he should render unto himself the role of

moderator as well as that of participant--one who is extremely biased, in case anyone has any doubts. As I see it--and I

have explained this in new posts on the thread--this is a blatant example of the suppression of evidence. Burton does not

want other members of this forum to see how Jack's proofs make photo fakery obvious and undeniable (for anyone who

cares about the truth of the matter). Evan Burton: highhanded, authoritarian, arbitrary, self-protective, suppressing proof.

Posted Today, 03:52 PM

I am sorry, Evan. Jack is good at posting images, I am not. This won't work if you don't allow it. Of course,

I am not surprised that you have not replied to the evidence we have posted but have deleted it! That is about

what I would expect from you. If we are going to do this, I need his assistance in posting images. It's that simple.

I really don't have time for this under any other conditions. I took it to be an implied condition. You are off base.

No Jack. You are not a participant. Jim can post his evidence, one at a time, and I will reply to each. If he cares to reply on your work, then he can easily link to the image.

First and Final warning: if you post in this thread again you'll be placed on moderation for duration of the debate.

Any comments you have can be placed in the debate comments thread.

Regarding FETZER/BURTON APOLLO DEBATE thread started on JFK and moved

to Conspiracies Forum...

Simkin and all moderators:

Burton is acting both as participant and moderator on this thread, ruling

that I will be put on moderation if I continue to post Apollo studies for

Burton and Fetzer to discuss. This is DESPICABLE. Burton should be

censured for this outrageous behavior. He is baffled by the studies I posted,

so he deleted them and threatened me. Outrageous!

My studies cannot be discussed unless I am allowed to post them. So to avoid discussing

my studies, Burton deleted them. He should be overruled.

Jack

He threatened me if I repost any of the studies. Well here you are, hot shot!

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary,

Thanks for volunteering and for your sensible suggestions. My take has been that, with regard to the first stage (you will see that I have identified ten--actually, eleven--sources, each of which represents a possible stage in the debate), I would ask Jack to post some of his studies, then Evan would reply, I would respond, and we would move to the next argument. That way there is an end to the exchange for each step of each stage. Later stages would involve my posting arguments and Evan replying, with my responding and then moving on. I would note that, unlike me, Evan has declared himself to be an expert on this subject, so I think the format is fair. I had thought it was resolved before I made my first post. In any case, if Evan agrees, then I will ask Jack to repost his studies of the moon rover and we can continue with the exchange. Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

Jim

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary,

Thanks for volunteering and for your sensible suggestions. My take has been that, with regard to the first stage (you will see that I have identified ten--actually, eleven--sources, each of which represents a possible stage in the debate), I would ask Jack to post some of his studies, then Evan would reply, I would respond, and we would move to the next argument. That way there is an end to the exchange for each step of each stage. Later stages would involve my posting arguments and Evan replying, with my responding and then moving on. I would note that, unlike me, Evan has declared himself to be an expert on this subject, so I think the format is fair. I had thought it was resolved before I made my first post. In any case, if Evan agrees, then I will ask Jack to repost his studies of the moon rover and we can continue with the exchange. Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

Jim

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary,

Thanks for volunteering and for your sensible suggestions. My take has been that, with regard to the first stage (you will see that I have identified ten--actually, eleven--sources, each of which represents a possible stage in the debate), I would ask Jack to post some of his studies, then Evan would reply, I would respond, and we would move to the next argument. That way there is an end to the exchange for each step of each stage. Later stages would involve my posting arguments and Evan replying, with my responding and then moving on. I would note that, unlike me, Evan has declared himself to be an expert on this subject, so I think the format is fair. I had thought it was resolved before I made my first post. In any case, if Evan agrees, then I will ask Jack to repost his studies of the moon rover and we can continue with the exchange. Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

Jim

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary,

Thanks for volunteering and for your sensible suggestions. My take has been that, with regard to the first stage (you will see that I have identified ten--actually, eleven--sources, each of which represents a possible stage in the debate), I would ask Jack to post some of his studies, then Evan would reply, I would respond, and we would move to the next argument. That way there is an end to the exchange for each step of each stage. Later stages would involve my posting arguments and Evan replying, with my responding and then moving on. I would note that, unlike me, Evan has declared himself to be an expert on this subject, so I think the format is fair. I had thought it was resolved before I made my first post. In any case, if Evan agrees, then I will ask Jack to repost his studies of the moon rover and we can continue with the exchange. Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

Jim

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary,

Thanks for volunteering and for your sensible suggestions. My take has been that, with regard to the first stage (you will see that I have identified ten--actually, eleven--sources, each of which represents a possible stage in the debate), I would ask Jack to post some of his studies, then Evan would reply, I would respond, and we would move to the next argument. That way there is an end to the exchange for each step of each stage. Later stages would involve my posting arguments and Evan replying, with my responding and then moving on. I would note that, unlike me, Evan has declared himself to be an expert on this subject, so I think the format is fair. I had thought it was resolved before I made my first post. In any case, if Evan agrees, then I will ask Jack to repost his studies of the moon rover and we can continue with the exchange. Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

Jim

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary,

Thanks for volunteering and for your sensible suggestions. My take has been that, with regard to the first stage (you will see that I have identified ten--actually, eleven--sources, each of which represents a possible stage in the debate), I would ask Jack to post some of his studies, then Evan would reply, I would respond, and we would move to the next argument. That way there is an end to the exchange for each step of each stage. Later stages would involve my posting arguments and Evan replying, with my responding and then moving on. I would note that, unlike me, Evan has declared himself to be an expert on this subject, so I think the format is fair. I had thought it was resolved before I made my first post. In any case, if Evan agrees, then I will ask Jack to repost his studies of the moon rover and we can continue with the exchange. Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

Jim

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure - I haven't discussed this with Evan and I lean more toward being a healthy sceptic of the moon landings than a believer. I am also wary of stepping on any other moderator toes with this offer, which if declined by the participants will cause me absolutely no offence at all.

That said, I think it is unwise for Evan to be both participant and moderator of the debate. I will put myself forward to moderate the debate if acceptable.

I would suggest that Jack is allowed to post the study under debate on Dr Fetzer's behalf - without comment - in the appropriate debate thread. Dr Fetzer and Evan can then debate away.

I would be fairly strict on bad language, insults (personal or otherwise) and those various, other, popular, tactics used to put down disguised as argument e.g. insults by proxy.

I would also suggest an endpoint is agreed in each debate - there will likely be no declarable winner, nor a safe way to identify one, and I don't think there would be anyone begging to referee either. End point suggestions - Time bound? number of posts/images/words per post per person? a maximum acceptable response time, without notice i.e. no posts for 3 days due to work is OK - not posting for 3 days with no notice or interim contact - close the thread?

The thread should be closed at debates end - the chaos of the format and moderation would be impossible otherwise.

Other members discussion threads should not spring up all over the place. One thread to discuss all the debates should suffice and links can be made to the relevant debate thread. Copying large portions of the main debate into the discussion threads will be seen as an underhand tactic to circumvent the non-participant posting stipulation and similar warnings and treatment as described below will apply.

Any non-partcipant posting in the debate thread will be advised of the ongoing debate and format and asked not to post in the thread via PM - the post will be made invisible asap - it is conceivable that there are folk who don't know this is happening and we don't want any innocents getting hurt. A second offence, after acknowledging warning, will constitute moderation for the duration of the open debate. If there is no acknowledgement of the PM warning a third offence may be tolerated. I will make a subjective judgement on this e.g. Craig, Jack, Len, Dean will get no warnings - whereas a new member may get more leeway :) I'm sure they understand. In any event all such posts will be made invisible.

These aren't my terms or conditions - merely suggestions to make the format more workable and to relieve Evan of the burden and abuse which will invariably come his way as a result of this. Therefore he could be a normal member free to debate in the relevant threads and Dr Fetzer should be free to debate him as a normal member instead of as a moderator.

Very sensible suggestions! I thought that was what was going to happen

until Moderator Burton removed the study images I posted for him and

Jim to discuss. How can the studies be discussed without the images?

Why should Moderator Burton be allowed to summarily wipe out the

subject images under discussion, thus avoiding discussion of them?

Why should he be able to threaten me with suspension if I post more

images?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

What the heck? You too lazy to post a simple link to the study of Jacks from Aulis that you want to discuss? Whats the matter? You need Jack as your "behind the scenes" man to tell you what to say? We all know you have ZERO knowlege about any of this? What is it you are afraid of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very sensible suggestions! I thought that was what was going to happen

until Moderator Burton removed the study images I posted for him and

Jim to discuss. How can the studies be discussed without the images?

Why should Moderator Burton be allowed to summarily wipe out the

subject images under discussion, thus avoiding discussion of them?

Why should he be able to threaten me with suspension if I post more

images?

Jack

Jim is a big boy, let him post his own links to your work. He knows how to do it. And why are you hiding behind jimmy? What is it YOU are afraid of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

What the heck? You too lazy to post a simple link to the study of Jacks from Aulis that you want to discuss? Whats the matter? You need Jack as your "behind the scenes" man to tell you what to say? We all know you have ZERO knowlege about any of this? What is it you are afraid of?

Hey,

I thought I answered this question a month ago - with the suggestion - posted here and at the Symposium section of the forum - that the basic rules of debating forensics be applied, using the Vermont model, that allows for teams to permit multiple individuals from entering comments - and doing it at that part of the forum rather than the over run JFK Debate section.

And Jack White came back with a really solid request that the formula just be applied - and let people state their case and for others to respond to it - so Jack's on board. '

What's the problem?

For one - you have to keep it off the JFK Assassination Forum, even though you know that's where all the hits are.

It shouldn't interfere with the regular operation of the forum, which does such a great service on many fronts.

So just back up a bit here, and look at the Vermont rules of forensic debate and cut it back to what is reasonable, and let's have another go around.

What do you say?

And once the lay out of the debate is decided upon, the topics can be addressed one at a time.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

What the heck? You too lazy to post a simple link to the study of Jacks from Aulis that you want to discuss? Whats the matter? You need Jack as your "behind the scenes" man to tell you what to say? We all know you have ZERO knowlege about any of this? What is it you are afraid of?

Hey,

I thought I answered this question a month ago - with the suggestion - posted here and at the Symposium section of the forum - that the basic rules of debating forensics be applied, using the Vermont model, that allows for teams to permit multiple individuals from entering comments - and doing it at that part of the forum rather than the over run JFK Debate section.

And Jack White came back with a really solid request that the formula just be applied - and let people state their case and for others to respond to it - so Jack's on board. '

What's the problem?

For one - you have to keep it off the JFK Assassination Forum, even though you know that's where all the hits are.

It shouldn't interfere with the regular operation of the forum, which does such a great service on many fronts.

So just back up a bit here, and look at the Vermont rules of forensic debate and cut it back to what is reasonable, and let's have another go around.

What do you say?

And once the lay out of the debate is decided upon, the topics can be addressed one at a time.

BK

No, Jack just wants to use a shill so he can keep from getting his butt kicked directly.

Chicken xxxxe if you ask me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Enough, Lamson. We all know you are a turkey breath. Jack has hundreds of studies on his computer. I am

telling him which ones I want posted. I don't have time for you or for Burton, for that matter. It is obvious the

one having his butt kicked is not me. He had to delete the evidence lest his incompetence be manifest at the

initial exchange. There are very good reasons no one takes your posts seriously. They are cheap and shallow.

Otherwise, without Jack's assistance, I am not interested in pursuing this. I just don't have the time. Thanks.

What the heck? You too lazy to post a simple link to the study of Jacks from Aulis that you want to discuss? Whats the matter? You need Jack as your "behind the scenes" man to tell you what to say? We all know you have ZERO knowlege about any of this? What is it you are afraid of?

Hey,

I thought I answered this question a month ago - with the suggestion - posted here and at the Symposium section of the forum - that the basic rules of debating forensics be applied, using the Vermont model, that allows for teams to permit multiple individuals from entering comments - and doing it at that part of the forum rather than the over run JFK Debate section.

And Jack White came back with a really solid request that the formula just be applied - and let people state their case and for others to respond to it - so Jack's on board. '

What's the problem?

For one - you have to keep it off the JFK Assassination Forum, even though you know that's where all the hits are.

It shouldn't interfere with the regular operation of the forum, which does such a great service on many fronts.

So just back up a bit here, and look at the Vermont rules of forensic debate and cut it back to what is reasonable, and let's have another go around.

What do you say?

And once the lay out of the debate is decided upon, the topics can be addressed one at a time.

BK

No, Jack just wants to use a shill so he can keep from getting his butt kicked directly.

Chicken xxxxe if you ask me...

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...