Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

I understand that there are varying degrees of paranoia in this field. Some of it is unfounded. Either way, I think it's encumbent on members to try to keep it in check.

There is also a degree of projection. For example: person x is person x, but a spectrum between y and z sees this person differently. Does that change x? Of course not. So why is there a range of attitudes? Simple: Because of there is a large range of people with attitudes. Know Thyself, then see how much of what you like or don't like, which then controls your actions, is nothing more than a mirror.

Then, IMO, there is the Ego. I have found this the hardest to battle with. Many times I have gone for a long drive for hours outback here before I can respond productively to posts. At times it overtakes me and I become it, and my posts are impulsive.

Generally I find this extremely amusing. It's incredible what a fool one can make of oneself...and then the hyenas wail, the buzzards start circling and it's not fun any more. For anyone.

Groupings. I've known from the start about background messaging and a rather predictable pattern ensues. It would be fascinating to get all the logs of the forum and create a time dimensional color dot pattern and then using that as the basis of an orchestral piece. So I choose independence. I'll talk civily with just about anyone. GPH and I who basically had diametrically opposing views on matters, ditto Tom Purvis and others, had some great exchanges, simply because we choose to be respectful of each other. We found a common ground.

At various times I've been invited by persons to join this or that grouping, but anyone who has done so will know that my answer is fundamentally no.

It's here or nowhere. But that's me. Others have different MOs.

It's a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand that there are varying degrees of paranoia in this field. Some of it is unfounded. Either way, I think it's encumbent on members to try to keep it in check.

There is also a degree of projection. For example: person x is person x, but a spectrum between y and z sees this person differently. Does that change x? Of course not. So why is there a range of attitudes? Simple: Because of there is a large range of people with attitudes. Know Thyself, then see how much of what you like or don't like, which then controls your actions, is nothing more than a mirror.

Then, IMO, there is the Ego. I have found this the hardest to battle with. Many times I have gone for a long drive for hours outback here before I can respond productively to posts. At times it overtakes me and I become it, and my posts are impulsive.

Generally I find this extremely amusing. It's incredible what a fool one can make of oneself...and then the hyenas wail, the buzzards start circling and it's not fun any more. For anyone.

Groupings. I've known from the start about background messaging and a rather predictable pattern ensues. It would be fascinating to get all the logs of the forum and create a time dimensional color dot pattern and then using that as the basis of an orchestral piece. So I choose independence. I'll talk civily with just about anyone. GPH and I who basically had diametrically opposing views on matters, ditto Tom Purvis and others, had some great exchanges, simply because we choose to be respectful of each other. We found a common ground.

At various times I've been invited by persons to join this or that grouping, but anyone who has done so will know that my answer is fundamentally no.

It's here or nowhere. But that's me. Others have different MOs.

It's a choice.

John...a good suggestion, though I doubt it would be implemented. I always look at the bottom of each

message I open to see who is looking at that moment. There is a definite pattern. About half a dozen

persons seem to be logged on at any given time, day or night...as if their only job is to continuously

monitor these forums. They also form tag-team partner groups as you say, so that when one replies

to a posting, all other members of that team start piling on. Some of these people, who allegedly work

for a living, could not possibly spend day and night here and still hold down a day job.

Like you, I am independent and belong to no gang.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that there are varying degrees of paranoia in this field. Some of it is unfounded. Either way, I think it's encumbent on members to try to keep it in check.

[...]

Generally I find this extremely amusing. It's incredible what a fool one can make of oneself...

[...]

John...a good suggestion, though I doubt it would be implemented. I always look at the bottom of each message I open to see who is looking at that moment. There is a definite pattern. About half a dozen persons seem to be logged on at any given time, day or night...as if their only job is to continuously monitor these forums. They also form tag-team partner groups as you say, so that when one replies to a posting, all other members of that team start piling on. Some of these people, who allegedly work for a living, could not possibly spend day and night here and still hold down a day job.

Brilliant post John, very perceptive amazing how Jack unwitting proved your points not deleted above.

beautiful-mind.jpg

Jack, If we were agents of some mysterious agency paid to "to continuously monitor these forums" we could easily escape your detection. For one the forum has a "log on as invisible" option that your buddy Duane liked to use. We could also: log on and off, monitor the forum using one browser (which was not logged on) and post with another (which was) or alternately use a IP mask or software when simply monitoring. You really desrved to have one 1st prize in the 2007 Forum "awards"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=130064

Here's a video for ya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ObLGRq33o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, I often leave the browser logged on while being absent from the computer for hours. Log off and on as time permits usually means powering down and the restart with all the attendant scans and setups are tedious, though I'm getting better, with mixing it up with other things that need doing rather than twiddling my thumbs for 45 minutes issuing command after command at lengthy intervals. Then I log on, and prefer to stay so, even though not looking at the page but taking time out to refresh as regularly as possible. There is a pattern, part of which is determined by refresh rates, hence, a time dimension to such mapping. Sometimes a back and fro is sparked and sometimes days may pass. The focus doesn't. Personally I think there is something to be said for the IRC ethics in good roooms vigilantly overlooked by moderators that don not remove what one says but institute status with varying degrees of latitude and tolerance, thereby enforcing proper behaviour, where you can quite simply take it or leave it, knowing you have to push pretty hard to get region lined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The JFK forum doesn't have two very important threads that exist on the PC one

1) A thread for members to complain about moderator actions they believe were unfair

2) A thread for moderators to record actions they've taken

a) Peter recently edited one of my posts I believe his actions unjustified

B) I responded to a post where he called another member "psychotic",both posts have disappeared without explanation.

If I was sent a PM my box was full and I will make space but think justification for such actions should be made publicly.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter’s intervention in this post shows why he is unfit to be a moderator

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=183130

3- There is no evidence the stabbing was related to his "research"

I can think of now way of wording a response that would not involve obscenities hurled at you for that. Callous. Insensitive. Inhuman....and wrong - accept to a Coincidence Theorist extraordiaire.

Even if Lemkin disagrees with me about the probability the attack ofnJack was research related his abusive language was uncalled for especially coming form a moderator.

4- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That was a very nasty ad hom I deleted. Let's not see that again. You have no respect, IMO,

His deletion of point 4 was an abuse of power. There was nothing wrong with it. Mods should NOT use their power to protect their friends from criticism. All I said was that Jack objects when people call abilities into question due to his advanced age therefore using it as a reason to cut him slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

What happened to the Lemkin threads? I can understand them being closed but making them invisible with only fuel his sense of victimization and inevitably lead to paranoid accusations something is being covered up. In any case an announcement should have ben made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the Lemkin threads? I can understand them being closed but making them invisible with only fuel his sense of victimization and inevitably lead to paranoid accusations something is being covered up. In any case an announcement should have been made.

I tend to agree, Len. IF Peter asked they be taken down, however, I can understand why his request was granted. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the Lemkin threads? I can understand them being closed but making them invisible with only fuel his sense of victimization and inevitably lead to paranoid accusations something is being covered up. In any case an announcement should have been made.

Forum:

1. A public meeting place for open discussion.

2. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

I have to agree, Len. A moderator must be moderate and accept that everyone is not going to always agree in a spirited debate, and be able to temper his/her defensiveness.

The threads were disappeared, which to anyone would feel like like censorship rather than an open forum.

My two posts were whisked away - and they were not critical of any specific individual, any more than this one is.

I think someone is perhaps feeling a little hyper-sensitive, and if that is the case they are MORE likely to get criticism for combining censorship with a total lack of transparency. I guess we are not suppose to question authority.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell

Joel

Edited by Joel D. Gruhn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the Lemkin threads? I can understand them being closed but making them invisible with only fuel his sense of victimization and inevitably lead to paranoid accusations something is being covered up. In any case an announcement should have been made.

I tend to agree, Len. IF Peter asked they be taken down, however, I can understand why his request was granted. Just a thought.

And WHAT request is that Mr. Speer? And, "Just a thought"? Surely you can be a little less opaque, eh? GAWD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the Lemkin threads? I can understand them being closed but making them invisible with only fuel his sense of victimization and inevitably lead to paranoid accusations something is being covered up. In any case an announcement should have been made.

I tend to agree, Len. IF Peter asked they be taken down, however, I can understand why his request was granted. Just a thought.

And WHAT request is that Mr. Speer? And, "Just a thought"? Surely you can be a little less opaque, eh? GAWD!

I naively thought for a moment that Andy and Peter had come to some sort of agreement that the threads were embarrassing, and that Peter had requested they be disappeared. Later I took a look at the Deep Politics Forum and came to realize that certain people over there have been encouraging Peter to sue Andy, and that Andy probably disappeared the threads on advice of legal counsel. The whole thing is totally embarrassing, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. AS I stated before, this is on a need to know basis. Therefore I unreservedly support the Education Forum and by inference its owners. Condemn me by all means, by innuendo, by loyalties, whatever, ignore me. I will not deviate from that.

edit:typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The administrators (Andy and John S.) and moderators (Kathy, John G., Stephen, Antii, Gary, Evan, Don) receive a great number of complaints about member’s postings. Some mornings when I get up I get a message that my mailbox is full because there have been so many complaints overnight. We have tried to deal with these complaints as fairly as possible but we are constantly accused of bias. These complaints in themselves are often abusive and it has taken a great deal of persuasion on my part to stop them from resigning from what is a thankless task. In fact, it has been argued that the moderation system is itself a conspiracy. It has also been claimed that the majority of the administrators and moderators are anti-conspiracy theorists. This is not true, although the majority of moderators do not see everything as a conspiracy. The reason that these people were selected as moderators is that they were always polite to people they disagree with. However, to those who appear to be only able to argue their case by being abusive, they consider all other members, as being “anti-conspiracy”.

Evan had the idea that if we made one of these aggressive members as a moderator, they would see what it is like to be on the receiving end of this abuse. It might even convince them that the administrator and moderators were not part of a conspiracy. Evan suggested Peter Lemkin as a moderator. This was a brave suggestion as Evan had been a regular victim of Peter’s abusive behaviour. I foolishly thought this was a good idea. So did most of the other moderators. However, right from the beginning Andy predicted that it would end in tears. Although we realised it was a risky decision, on a majority vote, he was elected as a moderator.

It appeared to work at first but after a few weeks we began to get complaints about what Peter was saying to other members by PM. Peter was also breaking forum rules by questioning the motives of individual posters. This was usually targeted against new members who told me that they were now reluctant to post. Battle hardened members such as Len Colby can take the flack but new members cannot. They were also confused by the fact that it was a “moderator” who was behaving that way.

Andy took the view that Peter should be removed as a moderator. However, I argued that he should be given another chance. I informed Peter that we were going to take a vote on removing him as a moderator. I and I expect other moderators, now received a succession of abusive emails from Peter. This included threats of legal action against us for spreading rumours about him being guilty of sexually harassing a female member of the forum. In fact, it was Jack White, one of Peter’s supporters, who first mentioned this on the forum. Peter also threatened to remove all the posts he had posted on the forum. Peter also threatened to persuade members to leave the Education Forum and join the Deep Politics Forum. At this point I began to wonder if this is what this has been about all along. Andy also drew our attention to what Peter was saying about individual moderators on the Deep Politics Forum.

Despite these emails I did not change my views on whether Peter should remain as moderator. The majority agreed with me. However, these abusive emails continued. So did the attacks on the Deep Politics Forum including the description of us being a “slime-pit”. I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay.

This triggered off more abusive emails from Peter. Even though I voted for him to stay as a moderator, I was also on the receiving end of numerous threats. You can imagine what the moderators who voted on his removal received. Peter is also threatening the Forum administrators with legal action. This appears to cover several issues but it did include postings about the claims of sexual harassment.

Tim Gratz threatened legal action against the Forum a few years ago. As a result he was also denied posting rights. The same thing will happen to anyone else who threatens me with legal action.

There was a case recently of a Forum owner who was successfully sued for a large sum of money after a member had posted comments about another member’s sex life. The judge pointed out that the Forum owner lost the case because they did not delete the offensive post when the member first made the complaint. Therefore, we have no choice but to delete all those threads where these accusations have been made.

I know Peter’s friends will be very upset by him being removed as a moderator. As a friend they will not have been on the receiving end of his abusive emails. However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The administrators (Andy and John S.) and moderators (Kathy, John G., Stephen, Antii, Gary, Evan, Don) receive a great number of complaints about member’s postings. Some mornings when I get up I get a message that my mailbox is full because there have been so many complaints overnight. We have tried to deal with these complaints as fairly as possible but we are constantly accused of bias. These complaints in themselves are often abusive and it has taken a great deal of persuasion on my part to stop them from resigning from what is a thankless task. In fact, it has been argued that the moderation system is itself a conspiracy. It has also been claimed that the majority of the administrators and moderators are anti-conspiracy theorists. This is not true, although the majority of moderators do not see everything as a conspiracy. The reason that these people were selected as moderators is that they were always polite to people they disagree with. However, to those who appear to be only able to argue their case by being abusive, they consider all other members, as being “anti-conspiracy”.

Evan had the idea that if we made one of these aggressive members as a moderator, they would see what it is like to be on the receiving end of this abuse. It might even convince them that the administrator and moderators were not part of a conspiracy. Evan suggested Peter Lemkin as a moderator. This was a brave suggestion as Evan had been a regular victim of Peter’s abusive behaviour. I foolishly thought this was a good idea. So did most of the other moderators. However, right from the beginning Andy predicted that it would end in tears. Although we realised it was a risky decision, on a majority vote, he was elected as a moderator.

It appeared to work at first but after a few weeks we began to get complaints about what Peter was saying to other members by PM. Peter was also breaking forum rules by questioning the motives of individual posters. This was usually targeted against new members who told me that they were now reluctant to post. Battle hardened members such as Len Colby can take the flack but new members cannot. They were also confused by the fact that it was a “moderator” who was behaving that way.

Andy took the view that Peter should be removed as a moderator. However, I argued that he should be given another chance. I informed Peter that we were going to take a vote on removing him as a moderator. I and I expect other moderators, now received a succession of abusive emails from Peter. This included threats of legal action against us for spreading rumours about him being guilty of sexually harassing a female member of the forum. In fact, it was Jack White, one of Peter’s supporters, who first mentioned this on the forum. Peter also threatened to remove all the posts he had posted on the forum. Peter also threatened to persuade members to leave the Education Forum and join the Deep Politics Forum. At this point I began to wonder if this is what this has been about all along. Andy also drew our attention to what Peter was saying about individual moderators on the Deep Politics Forum.

Despite these emails I did not change my views on whether Peter should remain as moderator. The majority agreed with me. However, these abusive emails continued. So did the attacks on the Deep Politics Forum including the description of us being a “slime-pit”. I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay.

This triggered off more abusive emails from Peter. Even though I voted for him to stay as a moderator, I was also on the receiving end of numerous threats. You can imagine what the moderators who voted on his removal received. Peter is also threatening the Forum administrators with legal action. This appears to cover several issues but it did include postings about the claims of sexual harassment.

Tim Gratz threatened legal action against the Forum a few years ago. As a result he was also denied posting rights. The same thing will happen to anyone else who threatens me with legal action.

There was a case recently of a Forum owner who was successfully sued for a large sum of money after a member had posted comments about another member’s sex life. The judge pointed out that the Forum owner lost the case because they did not delete the offensive post when the member first made the complaint. Therefore, we have no choice but to delete all those threads where these accusations have been made.

I know Peter’s friends will be very upset by him being removed as a moderator. As a friend they will not have been on the receiving end of his abusive emails. However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum.

Response to the arbitrary action taken here (while JS was absent) has been articulated elsewhere on this board (IF, those responses still exist) better than I ever could, for sure --

His friends? What's do they have to do with the current issue? Why make his "friends" a focal point?

I'm a bit surprised John, I expected a more leftist, enlightening response from you... so-be-it!

Further, we all understand moderators come, they'll go. For a whole host of reasons. In this instance, it sounds and appears to me, a decision was made (by one EF grand elder) to rid itself of one of its more controversial, and conspiracy oriented moderators. He and a few mod's wanted to correct an earlier mod assignment mistake.

An allegation was made via email, concerning same specific mod. The stage was set. when EF action was taken the inevitable backlash occurred. Almost immediately thereafter it was THEN determined, through EF back channel e-mails that that same moderators alleged major sin was now a 'misunderstanding'... oh-my!

The foolish reaction(s) displayed by one biased EF director, a few mod's, and of course the resident trolls --- sigh..... bad, bad PR... worthy only of the 6th Floor Mausoleum...

If the Ed Forum wishes to distance itself from JFK assassination/conspiracy subject matter, it should do well in searching out qualified WCR supporters, and for those WCR supporters that are present here, you've been upstaged. perhaps that's why they're so quiet.... bad, BAD PR, John. This issue has nothing to do with said mod's "friends", this has much to do with Ed Forum educational credibility...

Peace....

David Healy

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get your jollies somewhere else

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

×
×
  • Create New...