A Note to the "moderators"

[Robert Harris]

When we first log into this forum, we see a listing of topic threads which include the all important "JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points" pinned firmly near the top, assuring everyone that this place is for civil and rational discussions.

Undoubtedly, the most important of those rules guarantees us all protection from intellectual hoodlums who rely on insults and personal smears to overcome adversaries who they are unable to refute through reason.

"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."

Over the past week, I have sent three messages to John Simkin, three messages to Kathy Beckett, one PM to Evan Burton and two public messages to Mr. Burton, requesting enforcement of that rule. Not one of them has denied my claim but all three have repeatedly ignored it.

As many of you have seen, a small band of lone nutters (including a couple who pretend otherwise) led by Duncan Mcrae have targetted me with literally dozens of personal attacks and insults, and have even gone so far as to create a thread in which the title includes my name and accuses me of being a xxxx.

"You couldn't make this up But Bob Harris did"

But lest anyone think our moderation team is asleep at the switch, Evan Burton sprang swiftly into action when I used what he considered to be an obscene word and has put me on 7 days of "moderation". Of course, there is no rule restricting the use of "dirty" words in this forum, nor should there be - especially since our median age qualifies most of us for senior discounts.

Even John Mcadams, a fanatical nutter from a Catholic college permits posters to post "that word" in his forum. Just ask him.

But anyway, for any "moderator" who is willing to respond, will you or will you not enforce the rules that really do exist? This is my ninth request and if the answer is "no" I will certainly not be shocked.

Oh, and for Evan, I hope you will consider the words of one of America's greatest thinkers and philosophers. I am referring of course, to the late George Carlin who obviously gave a great deal of thought to the issue of censors telling us which words we can and cannot use.

[Evan Burton]

""You couldn't make this up But Bob Harris did"" was discussed amongst the moderators and it was decided that it did not violate Forum rules. I thought Kathy had conveyed that to you; my apologies that you were not told of the decision.

[Robert Harris]

""You couldn't make this up But Bob Harris did"" was discussed amongst the moderators and it was decided that it did not violate Forum rules. I thought Kathy had conveyed that to you; my apologies that you were not told of the decision.

As I told you before Evan, she said she couldn't figure out whether the allegation that I was "making things up" was really an accusation of dishonesty.

As for your "meeting", I think you just made that up, didn't you Evan?

[Dean Hagerman]

Bob, are you calling me a Lone Nutter?

[Robert Harris]

Bob, are you calling me a Lone Nutter?

Dean, may I take that to be an admission that you are part of a group which deliberately set out to post personal insults and smear me? Why would you do that rather than challenge me honestly, based on evidence and reason?

As for your allegiance, only you know that. But I do know that when you promote the theory that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, you damage the cause of honest researchers in two ways. First, you make us look like idiots to the world and especially better educated people.

And second, you undermine the validity of what is probably the single best piece of evidence in existence, which proves that Oswald could not have acted alone.

If you are not a nutter then you should be, because you are doing one hell (er.. heck) of a good job for them.

[Evan Burton]

As for your "meeting", I think you just made that up, didn't you Evan?

No, I didn't. Contact any other moderator or administrator, and ask them to check the Report Center.

[Robert Harris]

As for your "meeting", I think you just made that up, didn't you Evan?

No, I didn't. Contact any other moderator or administrator, and ask them to check the Report Center.

Sigh..

[Evan Burton]

I got your point, BTW.

[Dean Hagerman]

But I do know that when you promote the theory that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, you damage the cause of honest researchers in two ways. First, you make us look like idiots to the world and especially better educated people.

Your a funny guy Bob, please humor me some more

[Robert Harris]

I got your point, BTW.

Good! Then why would you make the ridiculous claim this was not an accusation of dishonesty, which is expressly prohibited in the forum rules?

And why do you still refuse to even discuss the rule which prohibits personal attacks and insults? Why isn't that rule enforced?

[Evan Burton]

Good! Then why would you make the ridiculous claim this was not an accusation of dishonesty, which is expressly prohibited in the forum rules?

Because it is not. Calling someone a xxxx is forbidden. Being "dishonest" is a grey area, and it is left to the moderator's judgement as to whether it is a violation or not. In this case, we didn't think it violated the rules.

And why do you still refuse to even discuss the rule which prohibits personal attacks and insults? Why isn't that rule enforced?

Because almost every time it is, the accused party claims it is being applied unfairly and other accuse moderators of not letting adults discuss things, or not having a sense of humour. That particular rule HAS been discussed of late, and moderators have been loath to enforce it, except where it is clearly an unwarranted attack.

It is assessed by seeing if the post is reported, how many people reported a post, and most importantly, it is left to the judgement of moderators.

[Robert Harris]

Good! Then why would you make the ridiculous claim this was not an accusation of dishonesty, which is expressly prohibited in the forum rules?

Because it is not. Calling someone a xxxx is forbidden. Being "dishonest" is a grey area, and it is left to the moderator's judgement as to whether it is a violation or not. In this case, we didn't think it violated the rules.

And why do you still refuse to even discuss the rule which prohibits personal attacks and insults? Why isn't that rule enforced?

Because almost every time it is, the accused party claims it is being applied unfairly and other accuse moderators of not letting adults discuss things, or not having a sense of humour. That particular rule HAS been discussed of late, and moderators have been loath to enforce it, except where it is clearly an unwarranted attack.

It is assessed by seeing if the post is reported, how many people reported a post, and most importantly, it is left to the judgement of moderators.

OIC, so you can call someone a xxxx so long as you use a synonym for the term. And you won't enforce the other rules because violators will complain about it.

So why do you need moderators? Oh, almost forgot - you need 'em in case someone breaks a rule that doesn't exist.

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place

[David Von Pein]

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place.

How could "reason" be a commodity in a place where a goodly number of people discussing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases believe that JFK's and Tippit's killer didn't even fire a single shot at either victim?

That type of mindset is reserved for an unreasonable forum, not a reasonable one.

Edited November 14, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place.

How could "reason" be a commodity in a place where a goodly number of people discussing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases believe that JFK's and Tippit's killer didn't even fire a single shot at either victim?

That type of mindset is reserved for an unreasonable forum, not a reasonable one.

I find this response unreasonable.

[Robert Harris]

I think I'm beginning to see why reason is not a popular commodity around this place.

How could "reason" be a commodity in a place where a goodly number of people discussing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases believe that JFK's and Tippit's killer didn't even fire a single shot at either victim?

That type of mindset is reserved for an unreasonable forum, not a reasonable one.

David, I would agree with you, at least in regard to the impossibility that Oswald was a totally ignorant patsy. But the old school conspiracy buffs are not the only ones who refuse to employ reason.

Why won't you talk about the fact that witnesses never heard some of the shots and were only startled by two of them? We know exactly how loud Oswald's rifle was and we KNOW the effect shots from that rifle would have on people who were close to the bullet's path. Why won't you talk about the fact that the limo passengers were exposed to sound levels 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions MUST take place, when high powered rifles were fired?

And why won't you talk about the fact that the only two times they reacted that way, were too close together for Oswald to have fired both of them?

And do you think it is reasonable to ignore the fact that Oswald was on a straight-line path to Ruby's apartment when he was intercepted by Tippit who just "coincidentally" happened to pick him out of a population of millions, far from the crime scene and in spite of the fact that he didn't even match the description that was being put out at the time?

If you really want to apply "reason" to this case David, you should read an excellent article entitled, "Car #10 Where are You" which describes Tippit's frantic efforts to catch Oswald during the minutes prior to their confrontation.

Yes, an awful lot of this ancient conspiracy lore is crap. But buried under all this lunacy is a rock solid case for conspiracy that you will never refute. I think you ignore it for the same reason they ignore it. You like your theory, in spite of the fact that it could not possibly be correct.