Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

and for the record BMiller, any alteration that took place in the Z-film happened at the 35mm level, multiple ways of accomplishing same... as I suggest and graphically displayed 6 years ago -- just like they do in the big leagues, the results dumped down to K-II 8mm film....[/color]

David, you must be really stupid to repeat the same half-assed argument over and over again. Once again, no one said the film could not be altered at any level if given a reasonable window of time ..... what you keep leaving out of the equation is that it could not be done so not to be detected by todays standards of investigating the possibility. No one has showed any evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered ... I believe that you and I have agreed on that to date.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

and for the record BMiller, any alteration that took place in the Z-film happened at the 35mm level, multiple ways of accomplishing same... as I suggest and graphically displayed 6 years ago -- just like they do in the big leagues, the results dumped down to K-II 8mm film....[/color]

David, you must be really stupid to repeat the same half-assed argument over and over again. Once again, no one said the film could not be altered at any level if given a reasonable window of time ..... what you keep leaving out of the equation is that it could not be done so not to be detected by todays standards of investigating the possibility. No one has showed any evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered ... I believe that you and I have agreed on that to date.

Bill Miller

Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time!

STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao!

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

  • 2 weeks later...
Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time!

STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao!

From where I come from .... when someone works for their Daddy, we call it a "lifetime allowance".

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time!

STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao!

From where I come from .... when someone works for their Daddy, we call it a "lifetime allowance".

Bill Miller

someone buy this guy another drink, now I work for my Daddy, roflmfao -- what-a-stump!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The popular historical consensus leans toward a conspiracy

of assassins in an ambuscade followed by powerful government

and establishment cover ups in the years 1963 to the present.

EDUCATION FORUM members have laid out firm tactical and strategic

leads and theories that address guilt beyond that of

mr. lee harvey oswald and his friend jack ruby

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Stephen Turner
EDUCATION FORUM members have laid out firm tactical and strategic

leads and theories that address guilt beyond that of

mr. lee harvey oswald and his friend jack ruby

Oh aye Shanet, in spades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA).

These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK section. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views.

Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed.

It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate.

It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum.

For further guidance of expected behaviour see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA).

These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK section. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views.

Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed.

It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate.

It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum.

For further guidance of expected behaviour see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

John,

Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough!

Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what?

Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile...

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

[...]

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

John,

re the above, should or must? please clarify.

DHealy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA).

These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK section. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views.

Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed.

It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate.

It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum.

For further guidance of expected behaviour see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

John,

Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough!

Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what?

Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile...

David Healy

David a simply forum search gives you this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=5680

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Hi,

Being one of the first of the moderating committee to tread lightly into posting here - I'd like to give everyone a chance to positively contribute the continued well being of this esteemed forum.

As an attempt at a statement of intent and as a means of, hopefully, allaying and misconceptions or fears about the role I am undertaking; I submit the following.

I have obviously not been a member long enough to know better than to accept this role, but long enough to know that the vastly overwhelming number of members post with good faith, their research, opinions and questions. The forum membership is extremely knowledgeable and mature and, as a result, self regulating in the extreme. I do not intend, nor will I do anything to ruin the well established forum relationships and all that entails.

I can ensure all that my personal integrity will enable impartial decision making. I am also generously endowed with a sense of humour, and thick skin, amongst other things, which I hope will serve me well.

I intend to be reasonably passive; not intervening unless asked to and only then after careful consideration with the moderating committee as a whole. My preference would be for first party communication only to the committee. I am aware that in the modern workplace and everyday life personal perception rather than intention is seemingly nine tenths of the law. Therefore if its OK for the folk involved I'm inclined to not intervene on a 3rd party request, though as with everything in life, this cannot be said to be without exception.

I sincerely hope that no-one countenances the idea that the forum is now a nanny/police state. I would be massively disappointed if the appointment of the committee makes any forum member think this. The moderating function has always been undertaken and operated in the background in a discreet manner and I hope to continue this.

If the new committee's formation results in John having more time to deal with vastly more important issues then a modicum of success will have already been achieved.

All communication will be treated with confidentiality and only shared and discussed amongst the committee. I can say for certain that a PM will never surface on the forum from me.

I have posted this so hopefully forum members can advise me on how best to progress and also to give an idea of my vision of my role and moderating style.

I hope to be redundant and fully expect to be.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
And who monitors the moderating committee?....I hope anything removed from a post will be 'visable' as deleted so what is going on is transparent to Forum Members. Kathy, I know nothing about you, but you are obviously very new here and that gives me pause....

We'll see....I would hope only the most agregious things would be censored. We all get upset and angry every once and a while and as long as there is still information and/or empassioned opinion being

expressed without being cruel or just plain meanspirited, I hope it will pass muster. Repeat offenders who only belch bile [there are some here] should be looked at more closely when they step over the line...but still the line must be 'way out there'.

Peter, all of us, as forum members, monitor the moderating committee and to an extent always have done.

Bile belching and any other projectile emissions (not related to JFK ballistics, of course) will be cleaned up, John has sub-contracted a local firm for the job.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Edited by Gary Loughran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a question in the "BEHAVIOUR" thread that has so far gone unanswered, but I feel that it is quite important to American members, so I will paraphrase it here.

In "American culture", the merest hint of "unequal representation", will place a major stumbling block in the hearts, minds and attitudes of the "governed". If history is to be referenced, there is probably no more a defining point of agreement among Americans. Somewhat a colonial carry over I suppose. It is similar to the old revolutionary cry of "taxation without representation".

My other question was somewhat related. It deals with the meaning of the words "peers" and "peerage". In American "culture" the word "peers" simply implies similarity or familiarity. I am inclined to believe that the British usage of "peerage" refers to something quite different. This is a "very important" concept in the American mind.

Judgement by ones "peers" means something a little different in Great Britain than in the United States. If I am not mistaken, "peerage" in Great Britain is meant to incorporate a class structure.

I well realize that this is your forum and you may set the governing rules as you wish. I do not mean to imply an absence of legality.....but I am questioning the old American definition of equality, which is deemed quite important in American "culture".

Since the forum moderators seem intent on stating their opinions on the "lack of American culture", and have stated that Americans are the major problem on this forum.....I feel that what I consider a "lack of legitimate representation", is just another slap in the face to America, and what might be considered a "cultured" way of asking us to leave.

As an afterthought I would like to add that the words "culture" and "class" have very different meanings. Culture certainly does not bestow class !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Big Brother is a must.

We'll see how things pan out. The setup seems well thought out with checks and balances.

If "not intervening unless asked to and only then after careful consideration with the moderating committee as a whole." is a general approach consistently adhered to by all moderators there should be no cause for complaints.

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...