Dedicated threads? A good idea?

[Pat Speer]

The thread on Joseph McBride's new book has illuminated an ongoing problem. When someone writes something that invites a response--that has nothing to do with the original thread--how is one to respond?

Traditionally, the forum has allowed threads to wander to and fro and round the bend, as long as people conducted themselves in a relatively civil manner.

This, at times, can prove frustrating to those wishing to discuss or follow the original topic.

It can also drive authors and researchers willing to discuss their work in a thread devoted to their research...to stop following the forum. I mean, who can blame them, if, whenever a new post is added to the thread on their research, they find it is a post devoted to someone else's research, or a snip and paste from someone else's website that is only tangentially relevant to their book or research?

I think I see a solution to this problem. I propose that, whenever an author or researcher agrees to participate in a thread on their book or research, that this thread be given the sub-heading of "Devoted Thread," and that the moderators be encouraged to police this thread, and remove, if necessary, posts that have little or nothing to do with the book or research to which the thread is devoted.

Those wishing to ask off-topic questions, of course, will be encouraged to do so in a separate thread.

The majority of threads, of course, will remain non-devoted threads, in which the discussion can follow the breeze.

I believe this will lead to more substantive posts, and a better climate overall.

Thoughts?

Edited August 4, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Ken Pierce]

I agree. I would like for this to be protocol. I get tired of wading through crap to find on-topic posts in threads like Mr. McBride's thread.

[William Kelly]

Many of the threads drift towards LBJ and there should be an LBJ did it thread - I'm sure there is - and I would like Mr. Morrow to repost his article from OpEd News so we can discuss that here.

thanks,

[Mark Knight]

I'm with the others at this point. Lets move the LBJ-did-it stuff to the LBJ-did-it thread, and the specific LHO-did-it stuff [NOT related to the discussion of the book being discussed] to the LHO-did-it threads.

In the past, I've been guilty of engaging in the discussions that run hither and yon...but I'm trying to do better.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

In the Clint Murchison thread, the name "Madeleine Brown" came up. Well that is a highly critical name to indicting both Clint Murchison, Sr. and Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination.

I don't see how one can mention Clint Murchison, an inner circle LBJ supporter, without the topic of LBJ's participation in the JFK assassination coming up.

And once the name "Madeleine Brown" came up their almost always is a debate on her credibility, who she was, how she came to know LBJ, is the "Murchison party legit," did LBJ tell her those extremely informative things at the Driskill on 12/31/63?

So how in the world can someone talk about Clint Murchison, without talking about Madeleine Brown or LBJ for that matter?

As for McBride's thread - I posted my Amazon review of his book.

[Pat Speer]

In the Clint Murchison thread, the name "Madeleine Brown" came up. Well that is a highly critical name to indicting both Clint Murchison, Sr. and Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination.

I don't see how one can mention Clint Murchison, an inner circle LBJ supporter, without the topic of LBJ's participation in the JFK assassination coming up.

And once the name "Madeleine Brown" came up their almost always is a debate on her credibility, who she was, how she came to know LBJ, is the "Murchison party legit," did LBJ tell her those extremely informative things at the Driskill on 12/31/63?

So how in the world can someone talk about Clint Murchison, without talking about Madeleine Brown or LBJ for that matter?

As for McBride's thread - I posted my Amazon review of his book.

If you re-read my proposal, Robert, you will see that it does not apply to the Murchison thread.

I am targeting a specific problem--where someone is here to discuss a book and they are unable to do so due to all the other stuff dragged onto the thread discussing their book.

As far as your review of McBride's book, I read it. You spent most of the time talking about YOUR reasons for believing there was a conspiracy, and very little time discussing McBride's book. It seemed to me that you'd only glimpsed through the book.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

You are correct, Pat.

If Joseph McBride is still searching for JFK's killers 50 years later, all he had to do was talk to Madeleine Brown, a name not mentioned once in the index of his book of 675 pages.

That is why McBride is still looking ...

Most of the Texas researchers who had much access to Madeleine found her very credible.