Forum Rules

[John Dolva]

Cool, Hi. A point I make is that it is for the (evolving) management team to make these decisions. I'm not privy to the deliberations nor the factors involved (in fact I don't want to be). I have no reasons to distrust the managements team in its decision making and even if I did that would be my problem to own. I can only imagine it can be a thankless task at times.

edit typo

Edited April 26, 2015 by John Dolva

[Vanessa Loney]

Hi John - I perfectly agree it's for the management team of EF to make these decisions. I have never disputed that and believe I've always behaved courteously and appropriately to management.

Cool, Hi. A point I make is that it is for the (evolving) management team to make these decisions. I'm not privy to the deliberations nor the factors involved (in fact I don't want to be). I have no reasons to distrust the managements team in its decision making and even if I did that would be my problem to own. I can only imagine it can be a thankless task at times.

edit typo

[Evan Burton]

I think what people are finding is that it can be very difficult to set black & white rules that cover all circumstances; that is why Moderators are used. They use their best judgement as to what is acceptable and what is not. They are the referees of the Forum.

[James R Gordon]

Vanessa,

In Post 18 you make a number of points but I will deal with two.

The content of a post and the language used in the post.

With regard to content, that for individual members to discuss among themselves and determine the validity of the basis of any argument and idea. The present administration has never intruded on that. There are many posts whose basis I thoroughly disagree with, but I do not believe I have intruded on that issue unless I have gone into discussions with members on such topics as the Connally wounding. In those case I have not commented on the topic and proposition but have joined the discussion. And members have not been reticent to point out where they feel I was wrong. But this administration does not cast value judgements on the validity or not of debating topics. That is left for members to agree about or not and to come to whatever consensus they wish to do.

Language is a very different issue. Kathy was right I am very frustrated about this. This is a red line issue for me and one on which I will not budge.

Last June John Simkin was kind enough to trust us to take over his forum. You might be more familiar with the JFK Assassination Debate forum, but the vision that John and Andy Walker had in constructing this forum went well beyond this particular forum. Quite rightly they called it the “Education” forum and the breadth of it is quite staggering. The membership may not be aware of this, but in the run up to taking over we discussed whether we would keep the entire forum or ditch everything but the JFK Forum. Our consensus was that we would seriously damage the vision of John and Andy if we ditched the other parts of the forum…even though it would have been cheaper to do so.

Towards the end of John’s time - I remember - he too took exception to inappropriate use of language and infighting. As I remember it - and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong - he gave up fighting this issue. I believe he found it the infighting just too stressful.

I believe John was right when he took on this issue, I believe it is inappropriate to what this forum stands for - and I am talking about the Education Forum and not just the JFK Assassin debate forum - to allow such language use. I see a difference between a member arguing a cause that clearly is different from the norm. As an Education Forum we support the right of any member to argue whatever view they have on the assassination and its evidence.

However inappropriate language is not a members right to use. Yes, we have allowed it in the past and - indeed may well compromised ourselves as to how we dealt ( or did not deal ) with instances.

This is a red line issue - which will not be walked back from. The present administration would hope we have the support of the majority of members - and I believe we probably have. I want no member to feel they need to leave the forum, but I also insist that all members comply and be circumspect with their language use. And if they cannot, then they may need to make a decision.

When this forum was set up the tone and purpose of the forum was decided by John and Andy. As the new guardians of this forum we will honour this intent and ensure it is part of the everyday life of the forum.

James.

[Ron Ecker]

There appears to be a bias against ROKCers

Please excuse my ignorance, but what are ROKCers?

[Vanessa Loney]

Vanessa,

In Post 18 you make a number of points but I will deal with two.

The content of a post and the language used in the post.

With regard to content, that for individual members to discuss among themselves and determine the validity of the basis of any argument and idea. The present administration has never intruded on that. There are many posts whose basis I thoroughly disagree with, but I do not believe I have intruded on that issue unless I have gone into discussions with members on such topics as the Connally wounding. In those case I have not commented on the topic and proposition but have joined the discussion. And members have not been reticent to point out where they feel I was wrong. But this administration does not cast value judgements on the validity or not of debating topics. That is left for members to agree about or not and to come to whatever consensus they wish to do.

Language is a very different issue. Kathy was right I am very frustrated about this. This is a red line issue for me and one on which I will not budge.

Last June John Simkin was kind enough to trust us to take over his forum. You might be more familiar with the JFK Assassination Debate forum, but the vision that John and Andy Walker had in constructing this forum went well beyond this particular forum. Quite rightly they called it the “Education” forum and the breadth of it is quite staggering. The membership may not be aware of this, but in the run up to taking over we discussed whether we would keep the entire forum or ditch everything but the JFK Forum. Our consensus was that we would seriously damage the vision of John and Andy if we ditched the other parts of the forum…even though it would have been cheaper to do so.

Towards the end of John’s time - I remember - he too took exception to inappropriate use of language and infighting. As I remember it - and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong - he gave up fighting this issue. I believe he found it the infighting just too stressful.

I believe John was right when he took on this issue, I believe it is inappropriate to what this forum stands for - and I am talking about the Education Forum and not just the JFK Assassin debate forum - to allow such language use. I see a difference between a member arguing a cause that clearly is different from the norm. As an Education Forum we support the right of any member to argue whatever view they have on the assassination and its evidence.

However inappropriate language is not a members right to use. Yes, we have allowed it in the past and - indeed may well compromised ourselves as to how we dealt ( or did not deal ) with instances.

This is a red line issue - which will not be walked back from. The present administration would hope we have the support of the majority of members - and I believe we probably have. I want no member to feel they need to leave the forum, but I also insist that all members comply and be circumspect with their language use. And if they cannot, then they may need to make a decision.

When this forum was set up the tone and purpose of the forum was decided by John and Andy. As the new guardians of this forum we will honour this intent and ensure it is part of the everyday life of the forum.

James.

Vanessa,

In Post 18 you make a number of points but I will deal with two.

The content of a post and the language used in the post.

With regard to content, that for individual members to discuss among themselves and determine the validity of the basis of any argument and idea. The present administration has never intruded on that. There are many posts whose basis I thoroughly disagree with, but I do not believe I have intruded on that issue unless I have gone into discussions with members on such topics as the Connally wounding. In those case I have not commented on the topic and proposition but have joined the discussion. And members have not been reticent to point out where they feel I was wrong. But this administration does not cast value judgements on the validity or not of debating topics. That is left for members to agree about or not and to come to whatever consensus they wish to do.

Language is a very different issue. Kathy was right I am very frustrated about this. This is a red line issue for me and one on which I will not budge.

Last June John Simkin was kind enough to trust us to take over his forum. You might be more familiar with the JFK Assassination Debate forum, but the vision that John and Andy Walker had in constructing this forum went well beyond this particular forum. Quite rightly they called it the “Education” forum and the breadth of it is quite staggering. The membership may not be aware of this, but in the run up to taking over we discussed whether we would keep the entire forum or ditch everything but the JFK Forum. Our consensus was that we would seriously damage the vision of John and Andy if we ditched the other parts of the forum…even though it would have been cheaper to do so.

Towards the end of John’s time - I remember - he too took exception to inappropriate use of language and infighting. As I remember it - and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong - he gave up fighting this issue. I believe he found it the infighting just too stressful.

I believe John was right when he took on this issue, I believe it is inappropriate to what this forum stands for - and I am talking about the Education Forum and not just the JFK Assassin debate forum - to allow such language use. I see a difference between a member arguing a cause that clearly is different from the norm. As an Education Forum we support the right of any member to argue whatever view they have on the assassination and its evidence.

However inappropriate language is not a members right to use. Yes, we have allowed it in the past and - indeed may well compromised ourselves as to how we dealt ( or did not deal ) with instances.

This is a red line issue - which will not be walked back from. The present administration would hope we have the support of the majority of members - and I believe we probably have. I want no member to feel they need to leave the forum, but I also insist that all members comply and be circumspect with their language use. And if they cannot, then they may need to make a decision.

When this forum was set up the tone and purpose of the forum was decided by John and Andy. As the new guardians of this forum we will honour this intent and ensure it is part of the everyday life of the forum.

James.

Thanks for your response James.

I appreciate your comments about what happened to the previous Ed Forum and how you don't want to head down that path again. I am not arguing for rudeness or infighting. I am arguing for the fair application of the rules, lack of bias and for evidence-based research to be more strongly supported by this site.

From what I saw of Mr Parker's and Mr Graves' recent comments there was nothing to justify banning or suspension on the grounds of rudeness or bad language. Mr Parker was not disputing the rules and Mr Graves only comment was 'hear, hear'. I would like to ask again what have they done to merit their current banning/suspensions?

From his most recent post on the PM thread it looks as though we have now lost Randy Sorensen due to this issue. I think that this is a great shame as his comments were always fact-based and contributed substantially to the progress of the Prayer Man thread.

In the short time I have been on EF there have been a number of clear attempts to disrupt threads by posters who were not even on topic let alone making a rational argument. And if the current state of affairs on the PM thread continues it looks as though they have successfully killed that thread. A thread which may be the most important one that EF ever has.

Is that really the outcome you want James?

[James R Gordon]

Vanessa,

You will not be able to see what GP and TG said because I hid their comments.

I agree the PM thread is an important thread but I doubt it will disappear whatever the outcome. I believe members will still wish to debate it.

However whatever the importance of this or any other thread thread, it will not decide policy.

James

[Vanessa Loney]

Vanessa,

You will not be able to see what GP and TG said because I hid their comments.

I agree the PM thread is an important thread but I doubt it will disappear whatever the outcome. I believe members will still wish to debate it.

However whatever the importance of this or any other thread thread, it will not decide policy.

James

James - Respectfully, if Mr Parker and Mr Graves have not violated the Forum rules on language or rudeness what have they been banned for?

[Larry Hancock]

I'm concerned and feel that Venessa is expressing a very germane point. Although I would love to see less sarcasm and less negative comments, the end result of this is that you may end up with few posts with actual

data and simply an ongoing series of opinions and expositions. That's fine if the intent is simply to provide a forum for expression but it could end up being pretty shallow. As I've proposed before, perhaps

there could be an area for real research where posters have to offer documents, photos or actual data of some sort as well as a separate section for simply expressing their views and opinions. It would certainly would save

time for those inclined to be interested in factual content vs. general dialog and commentary.

[James R Gordon]

Larry,

I respect your view and position. You have voiced this to me before and, indeed, it may be possible to create a research section as you outline.

However, I disagree that vigorous debate cannot take place while also being circumspect in language use. I cannot see the argument where it is legitimate not to be circumspect in expression because one is passionate etc for a cause.

I see these two points ( a research area and language circumspection ) as very different points. I am prepared to look into the first and indeed feel it has potential, but the second is a red line issue. I am sorry, but I feel very strongly on this issue.

James.

[Ron Ecker]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what are ROKCers?

bump

Anyone with this knowledge can answer.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what are ROKCers?

bump

Anyone with this knowledge can answer.

It's Greg Parker's forum.

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/

[Ron Ecker]

It's Greg Parker's forum.

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/

Thank you.

[Don Jeffries]

Vanessa,

You, like Greg Parker, are confusing opinion, and interpretation of data, as "fact based research," and the opposition to that interpretation as irresponsible and something that shouldn't be tolerated on this forum. Some of us strongly object to the way Greg has interpreted the evidence regarding multiple Oswalds, and have debated him about it on this forum. That clearly wouldn't be permitted on Greg's forum. I certainly hope that such debate is always permitted here.

While I think James has been more than accommodating to the ROKCers who have appeared on this forum, it's only human to react a certain way when your forum, as well as its individual members, are attacked and ridiculed openly on another forum. What can you expect him to think when he sees himself vilified on ROKC, and then reads posts like the ones from you on this thread?

My disagreements with Greg Parker go back several years. I readily confess that what I see as his passive-aggressive style grates me the wrong way, and is clearly responsible for my continuing to interact with him, when normally I would realize I was at an impasse with another poster and move on to other things. He obviously feels as you do, that his "research" has resolved these questions, and those of us who don't agree should move aside and let "serious" investigators take the stage.

I personally agree that you posted nothing, at least that I saw, that warranted moderation. James has acknowledged this. However, you must realize that you still managed to drop the word "xxxxe" into a post on this thread. As John Dolva pointed out so cogently, you should be able to make your points without personal attacks and certainly without profanity or name calling. And if you're interpreting data in a particular way, as Greg does in regards to what most critics feel were attempts to impersonate Oswald, and to John Armstrong's research in particular, you must be able to deal with dissent. In my role as a moderator, this was my primary issue with Greg. He simply has a great deal of difficulty accepting that someone doesn't agree with him. This is evident by his posts where he claims, definitively, that he has "proven" something, or that what he says is "fact," when in reality it is only his interpretation of the data we have, which others may interpret differently.

In an interview I had with Ed Opperman a few nights ago, we discussed the way the JFK research community has always engaged in infighting. I won't issue my millionth plea for harmony here, but I will say that, if you truly believe in unfettered debate, with no moderation, then you shouldn't be making multiple complaints to the moderators about the behavior of others. This has been the case with Greg Parker and Lee Farley, especially. It becomes a juvenile exercise in "Yeah, but look what he did." You mention Thomas Graves- he continues to issue snide, sarcastic replies which often include a derisive nickname for someone. Just yesterday, I believe he referred to Paul Trejo as "Garibaldi." I don't think it was meant as a compliment.

This may all be an exercise in futility, of course, as Greg Parker has seemingly issued one of those dramatic farewells to the forum on another thread. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is welcome here. But you should at least be able to not call names or use profanity while posting.

[Don Jeffries]

Just for the edification of those who are unfamiliar with the way WE are vilified at Greg Parker's forum, here is their latest attempt to lampoon me:

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13171680-open-letter-to-the-fez-?page=2

I'm sorry, but you can't expect researchers to take you seriously, or any human being to respect you, when you permit this kind of thing on your forum.