JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Evan Burton]

Stephen,

The best way is to report posts that you feel violate the Forum rules. The mods can have a look and take whatever action is required. We really do rely on members alerting us to posts which might be over the top.

[Len Colby]

Len,

The gambler has revised the description of his wager, would you please revise your quote of that description, appearing near the bottom of each of your posts?

Moving further up from that quote, Jack White is deceased. Taking that fact into account, would you consider revising the line displayed in each of your posts, quoting Jack, while you're at it?

Second request, Len. Displaying Robert's reference to his ______ is not an option. Remove the word. Continuing to display the Jack White quote in every one of your posts is an option.

Tom if you can tell me which forum rule I'm violating by leaving the "P word" (LOL) in my sig. I will remove it post haste.

[Blair Dobson]

Moderators:

I joined this forum some years ago because I saw it as a place for civil discussion and debate, where good information can be posted in an atmosphere of academic fairness, where mods step-in only when needed and where members are free to express opinions without fear of personal attacks. Sure, there have been knock-down drag-out fights (and I've been part of a couple), but the mods somehow always seemed to be able to pull us back on track.

I've been very disappointed with the atmosphere here lately. Some members have been attacking other members unfairly and obsessively. Some make personal attacks couched as sarcasm. Some feel that other members don't deserve the protections of the rules. A few posters are just plain mean. I find myself less and less interested in reading or posting here, and it needn't be that way. Is there anything the mods can do to improve the situation, to reduce the meanness and make it a more pleasant place for discussion?

you would have to dump the more colourful members of the board sadly...

see, like the American Political system, rather than have people who can cogently and logically sort something out, it's better to have everyone argue until nothing gets done so the result always stays the same; a confused mystery .

for the same reason smart folks don't enter politics, "real experts" never join these "debates".

nice thought though.

I hear the "bigfoot is actually jesus" threads are fairly civil....

Edited May 26, 2013 by Blair Dobson

[Guest Tom Scully]

for the same reason smart folks don't enter politics, "real experts" never join these "debates".

................................

What does that mean? Is there more accurate and newer information related to the Assassination of JFK" posted somewhere other than here?

Point me to it. I'll get my coat and car keys and meet you in the drive way.

Who are the "real experts"? Do you have a list of names you can post?

[Blair Dobson]

for the same reason smart folks don't enter politics, "real experts" never join these "debates".

................................

What does that mean? Is there more accurate and newer information related to the Assassination of JFK" posted somewhere other than here?

Point me to it. I'll get my coat and car keys and meet you in the drive way.

Who are the "real experts"? Do you have a list of names you can post?

Tom, the fact that you were given mod privs here should preclude you from trolling.

0/10

not even going to bother.

[Blair Dobson]

for the same reason smart folks don't enter politics, "real experts" never join these "debates".

................................

What does that mean? Is there more accurate and newer information related to the Assassination of JFK" posted somewhere other than here?

Point me to it. I'll get my coat and car keys and meet you in the drive way.

Who are the "real experts"? Do you have a list of names you can post?

Tom, the fact that you were given mod privs here should preclude you from trolling.

0/10

not even going to bother.

ok i'll bite...

i'll start another thread...

[Len Colby]

So Tom should I take your failure to reply to me (despite getting in to an argument with Blair) as a tacit admission on your part that my use of Morrow's quote including the word "penis" in my sig. does not violate any of the forum's rules and thus you had no basis for coercing me to change it?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Len,

I did not notice your recent posts here until this morning. I posted a second request to you and copied it in a post to

Blair.

I do not recall participating in an argument with Blair.

Others have cooperated, Len. I have been making polite requests to you.

Evidently, Pat Speer underestimated who wanted to think about what, every time they post.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

Amazing that you noticed Blair's post but missed mine which was immediately above it. I'm not into hairsplitting semantics; you participated in a less than friendly exchange with him on this page of this thread so saying, “I do not recall participating in an argument with Blair” was rather disingenuous, or were you really not smart enough to figure what I was referring to?

You still haven't told me which forum rule my signature violates. You are a Moderator, thus you can enforce the rules not make up new ones or give arbitrary orders. So until you or another Mod./Admin. provides a legitimate rationale for changing the quote, it's going to stay the way it is. And as I've told you due to your repeated violation of the rules I do not recognize your moral authority as a Mod. Pat agreed with you about Robert's sig. but Mr. Morrow reiterating his faux wager but it is bit different from me mocking him and his silly 'bet' in mine. This is analogous to Jack hypothetically having included his 'hung by their thumbs' comment in his sig. vs. my inclusion of it in mine.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Amazing that you noticed Blair's post but missed mine which was immediately above it. I'm not into hairsplitting semantics; you participated in a less than friendly exchange with him on this page of this thread so saying, “I do not recall participating in an argument with Blair” was rather disingenuous, or were you really not smart enough to figure what I was referring to?

You still haven't told me which forum rule my signature violates. You are a Moderator, thus you can enforce the rules not make up new ones or give arbitrary orders. So until you or another Mod./Admin. provides a legitimate rationale for changing the quote, it's going to stay the way it is. And as I've told you due to your repeated violation of the rules I do not recognize your moral authority as a Mod. Pat agreed with you about Robert's sig. but Mr. Morrow reiterating his faux wager but it is bit different from me mocking him and his silly 'bet' in mine. This is analogous to Jack hypothetically having included his 'hung by their thumbs' comment in his sig. vs. my inclusion of it in mine.

Len, can you not envision effects of an option available to all members that might have made it more difficult for me to notice your posts than to read Blair's?

You are recently off moderation. You have refused a polite request, twice, to act in a civil manner in the best interests of this community.

You admit you know that this request has come from more than one moderator, and that two other members have cooperated in implementing it.

I have escalated this incident to the attention of all moderators and admins. You seem to assume there have been no other deliberations about

the issue of inappropriate member signatures, aside from comments posted by Pat Speer and I.

You have acted on your assumptions with incomplete information, to your own disadvantage.

[Len Colby]

Amazing that you noticed Blair's post but missed mine which was immediately above it. I'm not into hairsplitting semantics; you participated in a less than friendly exchange with him on this page of this thread so saying, “I do not recall participating in an argument with Blair” was rather disingenuous, or were you really not smart enough to figure what I was referring to?

You still haven't told me which forum rule my signature violates. You are a Moderator, thus you can enforce the rules not make up new ones or give arbitrary orders. So until you or another Mod./Admin. provides a legitimate rationale for changing the quote, it's going to stay the way it is. And as I've told you due to your repeated violation of the rules I do not recognize your moral authority as a Mod. Pat agreed with you about Robert's sig. but Mr. Morrow reiterating his faux wager but it is bit different from me mocking him and his silly 'bet' in mine. This is analogous to Jack hypothetically having included his 'hung by their thumbs' comment in his sig. vs. my inclusion of it in mine.

Len, can you not envision effects of an option available to all members that might have made it more difficult for me to notice your posts than to read Blair's?

I have no idea what you are babbling about, you obvious don't have me on 'ignore'.

You are recently off moderation. You have refused a polite request, twice, to act in a civil manner in the best interests of this community.

Two "polite requests" from a moderator whose moral authority I do NOT recognize due to his hypocritical violation of the very rules he enforces against others.

You admit you know that this request has come from more than one moderator, and that two other members have cooperated in implementing it.

I made no such admission, do you have trouble understanding what you read? I noted that Pat's request was directed at Robert and that the context of the quote in his sig. was different from the same one in mine. I have no idea who the 2nd member you referred to is

I have escalated this incident to the attention of all moderators and admins. You seem to assume there have been no other deliberations about

the issue of inappropriate member signatures, aside from comments posted by Pat Speer and I.

You have acted on your assumptions with incomplete information, to your own disadvantage.

Another Mod./Admin., one whom I respect, asked me to alter my sig. thus I will due so, it has nothing to do with your threats.

[Ken Davies]

Could someone please tell me why there is a "0 warning points" under the number of my posts? Did I upset the ancient gods somehow, or just miss something?

Thanks in advance,
Ken "0 warning points" Davies

[Evan Burton]

When a forum member is banned for whatever reason, is it necessary to summarily delete all of his or her old posts?

Isn't that kind of Orwellian?

Dave

Apart from Peter - or if it is requested - I don't know of this happening. Even if requested, we really would prefer not to do that.

What instance were you refering to?

[David G. Healy]

...

Folks,

I am but a guest at your forum, but a little transparency would be appreciated.

Dave

oh-brother..... LMAO!

[David Andrews]

Could someone please tell me why there is a "0 warning points" under the number of my posts? Did I upset the ancient gods somehow, or just miss something?

Thanks in advance,

Ken "0 warning points" Davies

Ken - only the poster sees this message, when he posts and when signed in. Nobody else can see other people's points or zeroes.

Look - I can see mine!

Edited December 25, 2013 by David Andrews